2424‑0397

第 67 巻

第 2・3・4 号
2017 年 12 月

大阪大学経済学会
大阪大学大学院経済学研究科

会 長
評議員

谷 﨑 久 志（ABC 順）阿 部 顕 三鴋 澤
歩堂
福 重 元 嗣福 田 祐 一二廣 田誠
石 黒 真 吾祝
葛 城 政 明小 林 敏 男松
中 川 功 一西 原理（編集） 西大 西 匡 光太 田亘
恩
大 屋 幸 輔Pierre-Yves Donzé（編集） 佐
関
絵里香
椎 葉
淳
高
谷 﨑 久 志友 部 謙 一浦
渡 辺 泰 明Wirawan Dony Dahana許山 本 和 博（編集） 山 本 達 司
安

目
神
迫
村
村
地
井
橋
井

卓
孝
達
真
幸
一
り

生
深 尾
一（庶務） 開 本郎（会計） 勝 又
宏
村 宮
浩
西 脇
樹
小 野
さ
佐々木
慎
竹 内
憲
臼 井
衛 東
山 本
田 洋 祐

葉 子
浩 矢
壮太郎（会計）
克 彦
雅 人
哲 生
勝
惠 行
正 樹
千 映

大阪大学経済学

第67巻
目

第 2・3・4 号

次

論文
Top management team characteristics and team processes: A review…………………………………………………………… Xin Huang and Koichi Nakagawa
フェア・ディスクロージャー・ルールとアナリスト行動『大阪大学経済学』第 67 巻

平成 29 年………………… 石

川

1

徹

40

総目次…………………………………………………

iVol. 67 Nos. 2・3・4

OSAKA ECONOMIC PAPERS

December 2017

Top management team characteristics and team processes:
A review
Xin Huang † and Koichi Nakagawa ‡Abstract
In a fiercely competitive market and rapidly changing business environment, it is difficultfor individual leaders to scan the complex external environments and make critical decisions
on the future sustainable development of the companies, hence enterprises needs urgently tobuild effective top management teams to help them solve a number of complicated and difficult
problems. On the other hand, since Hambrick and Mason (1984) put forward the upper echelons
theory which marks the beginning of top management team research, many of the studies on top
management teams have demonstrated that top management team characteristics and processes
have significant influences on corporate strategy and performance.
This study reviews the extant literature on top management teams, especially the empiricalresearch. This review mainly summarizes and analyzes the theoretical development related to theupper echelons, the effects of top management team characteristics on organizational outcomes,
team processes and environmental influences, further synthesizes and integrates these researchfindings into a circle model to clarify the relationships among them, meanwhile providing somedirections for future research on top management teams.
JEL classification: M540, M120
Key words: top management team, characteristics, heterogeneity, team process, upper echelons

1. Introduction
In the face of a continually changing business environment and increasingly fierce market
competition, enterprises want to ensure competitive advantages and access to sustainable development,
not only need to build good relationships with their stakeholders and actively engage in the productand service innovation, but also pay more attention to the organization construction, especially top
management teams (TMTs) with the strategic decision-making power.
Since Hambrick and Mason put forward the “upper echelons theory” in 1984, the top management
team research has become an important research focus in the fields of strategic leadership and human†‡

Graduate Student, Graduate School of Economics, Osaka University
Associate Professor, Graduate School of Economics, Osaka University

XMFRemote̲(69014)208128̲大阪大学経済学 第67巻第2・3号(74602) (X4̲単頁) 1 折 2017/12/21 11:20:36

（1）

－2－

OSAKA ECONOMIC PAPERS

Vol. 67 Nos. 2・3・4

resources in the past thirty years, wherein there is widespread concern over the impacts of the top
management team characteristics on organizational outcomes from a demographic perspective. For
instance, TMT characteristics have influences on organizational innovation (Bantel & Jackson, 1989;
Camelo-Ordaz, Hernández-Lara & Valle-Cabrera, 2005; Daellenbach, McCarthy & Schoenecker,
1999; Heavey & Simsek, 2013; Liu et al., 2012; Wei & Lau, 2012), strategic change (Boeker,
1997; Lant, Milliken & Batra, 1992; Wiersema & Bantel, 1992), strategic consensus (Knight etal., 1999), competitive actions (Hambrick, Cho & Chen, 1996; Srivastava & Lee, 2005), corporate
internationalization (Carpenter & Fredrickson, 2001; Chen, 2011; Herrmann & Datta, 2005; Nielsen
B B & Nielsen S, 2011; Tihanyi et al., 2000), organizational crisis (Greening & Johnson, 1996),
team turnover (Wiersema & Bird, 1993), team performance (Boerner, Linkohr & Kiefer, 2011) andorganizational performance (Auden, Shackman & Onken, 2006; Cai, Liu & Yu, 2013; Cannella, Park,& Lee, 2008; Carpenter, 2002; Haleblian & Finkelstein, 1993; Kor, 2003; Liu et al., 2012; Nielsen
B B & Nielsen S, 2013; Richard & Shelor, 2002; Simons, Pelled & Smith, 1999; Wei et al., 2005;
Weinzimmer, 1997).
Hence, the study will summarize and analyze the existing literature on top management teams,
especially the empirical research, mainly from the following four aspects: the theoretical development
related to upper echelons, top management team characteristics such as TMT demographics andheterogeneities, team processes and environmental influences, further establishes a model ofrelationships among these variables, meanwhile offering some directions for future research on top
management teams.
2. Theory
The upper echelons theory was firstly introduced in 1984 by Hambrick and Mason, as a theoreticalbasis of the research on top management teams it has been developed and expanded many times in thepast thirty years (Abatecola, Mandarelli & Poggesi, 2013; Carpenter, Geletkanycz & Sanders, 2004;
Hambrick, 2007; Jackson, 1992; Nielsen, 2010; Raes et al., 2011; Wiersema & Bird, 1993).
2-1. Upper echelons theory
A large amount of research on top management teams has sprung up since the upper echelons
theory was put forward by Hambrick and Mason in 1984. On the one hand, the upper echelons theory
attaches importance to the entire top management team rather than individual leaders (Hambrick& Mason, 1984). Hambrick and Mason (1984), after studying and analyzing the strategic choicemodel based on bounded rationality, argue that a top manager often tends to screen, filter and evendistort information when confronting a highly complex environment which he/she has an inability
to understand and control by means of limited cognitive base and values, which can not only lead tolack of comprehensive perception and objective judgments, but also have an unfavorable impact on
the strategic decision making in an organization. Furthermore, it is impossible for a senior executive
to observe and notice every aspect of the organization or environment in terms of limited energy andcapability (Hambrick & Mason, 1984). Therefore, Hambrick and Mason (1984) eventually located

XMFRemote̲(69014)208128̲大阪大学経済学 第67巻第2・3号(74602) (X4̲単頁) 2 折 2017/12/21 11:20:36

December 2017

Top management team characteristics and team processes－3－

upper echelons theory at the level of the top management team.
On the other hand, the upper echelons theory places particular emphasis on observablecharacteristics (Hambrick & Mason, 1984). Top management team members have different cognitive
bases, values and insights, and interactions between these traits are more likely to influence strategic
choices and organizational performance, however it is difficult to measure these traits since many
senior managers are reluctant to take psychological tests (Hambrick & Mason, 1984). Hence,
Hambrick and Mason (1984) finally employed demographic characteristics as substitutes of theseunobservable traits in order to demonstrate the effects of top management teams on organizational
strategy and performance.
Taken together, as shown in the figure 1, Hambrick and Mason’s (1984) upper echelons model, thesedemographic characteristics (e.g. age, education, function) of the top management team, instead of
psychological characteristics (e.g. cognition, value), become the organizational reaction to the internaland external environment; on the other hand, these top management team characteristics are likely toaffect strategic choices, and in turn organizational performance directly or indirectly. In addition, themain contributions of the upper echelons model are: 1) a prediction of organizational outcomes basedon observable characteristics of the senior executives; 2) a reference for entrepreneurs or leaders in theselection and development of top-level managers; 3) a help for strategic decision makers to predict the
dynamic response of their competitors. However, the upper echelons model did not take into accountthe influence of other variables such as mediator and moderator variables that may exist between the
top management team characteristics and organizational outcomes, which may be one of the reasonsfor the divergence in the results of the empirical studies.

Figure 1 : An Upper Echelons Perspective of Organizations (Hambrick & Mason, 1984)

2-2. Upper echelons theory development
Hambrick and Mason’s (1984) upper echelons theory has a significance of the milestone in the
research areas of top management teams, and after that, there has been more attention paid to thistheory in academia. Some researchers have been using the upper echelons model as a research basis
in their studies on top management teams, and have continually been developing and validating the

XMFRemote̲(69014)208128̲大阪大学経済学 第67巻第2・3号(74602) (X4̲単頁) 3 折 2017/12/21 11:20:36

－4－

OSAKA ECONOMIC PAPERS

Vol. 67 Nos. 2・3・4

theory.
On the one hand, some scholars have been devoting themselves to developing the theoretical orconceptual extension of the upper echelons in order to expand and define the range of its application
areas (Carpenter, Geletkanycz & Sanders, 2004; Hambrick, 2007; Nielsen, 2010; Wiersema & Bird,
1993). Wiersema and Bird (1993) developed a cross-national model and introduced the ethnologicalcontext such as socio-cultural values that affected the tolerance of differences and in turn mediatedthe impacts of the demographic characteristics of top management teams on organizational outcomes,
for instance, the top management teams have lower tolerance towards heterogeneity in Japanesecompanies than in American companies since the oriental culture advocates collectivistic values.
Carpenter, Geletkanycz and Sanders (2004) extended the upper echelons theory and established thesecond generation model of the upper echelons, specially, they not only drew behaviors, cognitions
and some intervening variables (e.g. team process, integration, incentive, power and discretion) into
the upper echelons framework, but also identified the main antecedents of the top management teamconstitution that included external environment (e.g. stakeholder, labor market) and organizational
characteristics (e.g. firm and board characteristics). Hambrick (2007) refined his own upper echelons
theory mainly from the following two aspects: 1) enhanced two primary moderator variables
including executive job demands and managerial discretion; 2) elaborated two fundamental concepts
encompassing behavioral integration and power distribution of the top management team. Nielsen(2010) reviewed previous empirical literature on top management team heterogeneity from two
aspects of concept and methodology, and she not only stressed the importance of TMT diversity toupper echelons study, but also referred to the necessity of researching antecedents of top management
team constitution.
On the other hand, other researchers have been attempting opening the “black box” that existed in
the original theory so as to reveal decision-making processes of the top management teams (Abatecola,
Mandarelli & Poggesi, 2013; Jackson, 1992; Raes et al., 2011). Jackson (1992) made a supplementwith the strategic issue processing (e.g. conflict, commitment, decision quality and speed) to open the“black box” that existed in the upper echelons theory and paid more attention to the particulars of theprocesses, for example what kind of team constitution (e.g. homogeneous team, heterogeneous team)can affect organizational outcomes. Raes et al. (2011) created an interaction processes model of the
top management team and middle managers to give a new explanation of how top management teams
affect organizational outcomes. Abatecola, Mandarelli and Poggesi (2013) employed the frameworkof the five-factor model to systematically review the related studies about the effect of the personalityof top management team members on managerial outcomes of companies, and they explained how top
management teams make strategic decisions from a psychological perspective in order to attempt toopen the “black box” existing in the upper echelons theory through analyzing the TMT personality.
3. Top management team characteristics
A top management team is constituted by the most powerful and influential senior executives
who can not only create organizational mission and vision, but also take responsibility for strategic

XMFRemote̲(69014)208128̲大阪大学経済学 第67巻第2・3号(74602) (X4̲単頁) 4 折 2017/12/21 11:20:36

December 2017

Top management team characteristics and team processes－5－decision making. The constitution and membership of top management team are often defined or
identified mainly through two approaches: 1) to ask chief executive officer/general manager about who
are directly involved in major strategy decisions making (Amason, 1996; Amason & Mooney, 1999;
Amason & Sapienza, 1997; Heavey & Simsek, 2013; Knight et al., 1999; Ou et al., 2014; Simons,Pelled & Smith, 1999; Simons & Peterson, 2000; Wei & Lau, 2012); 2) to verify top-level managers’
titles and positions in an organization (Carpenter, 2002; Carpenter & Fredrickson, 2001; Chen, 2011;
Hambrick, Cho & Chen, 1996; Herrmann & Datta, 2005; Kor, 2003; Murray, 1989; Nielsen B B& Nielsen S, 2011; Tihanyi et al., 2000). Hence, most of the empirical studies on top management
teams identify TMT members and gather related information by means of interview (Amason, 1996;
Boeker, 1997; Heavey & Simsek, 2013; Knight et al., 1999; Simons & Peterson, 2000; Wei & Lau,2012), questionnaire (Amason & Mooney, 1999; Camelo-Ordaz, García-Cruz & Sousa-Ginel, 2014;
Raes, Bruch & De Jong, 2013; Simons, Pelled & Smith, 1999) and corporate publications such as
annual reports and prospectuses (Carpenter & Fredrickson, 2001; Hambrick, Cho & Chen, 1996; Kor,
2003; Liu et al., 2012; Murray, 1989; Nielsen B B & Nielsen S, 2011, 2013; Tihanyi et al., 2000).
Meanwhile, the research on top management team characteristics mostly focuses on some measurable
demographics and their heterogeneities.
Top management team demographics mainly encompass TMT age, tenure, educational level,
educational specialty and functional background, and based on the upper echelons theory, thesedemographics can take the place of the psychological characteristics such as value and cognition toreflect the social and organizational environments (Hambrick & Mason, 1984), further have effects
on organizational strategies (Bantel & Jackson, 1989; Boeker, 1997; Camelo-Ordaz, HernándezLara & Valle-Cabrera, 2005; Carpenter & Fredrickson, 2001; Chen, 2011; Daellenbach, McCarthy& Schoenecker, 1999; Flood et al., 1997; Gannon, Smith & Grimm, 1992; Hambrick, Cho & Chen,
1996; Herrmann & Datta, 2005; Kimberly & Evanisko, 1981; Lee & Park, 2006; Sambharya, 1996;
Srivastava & Lee, 2005; Tihanyi et al., 2000; Wiersema & Bantel, 1992) and performance (Hambrick& D’Aveni, 1992; Hutzschenreuter & Horstkotte, 2013a; Liu et al., 2012; Mayr, 2011; Pegels & Yang,
2000; Shipilov & Danis, 2006; Wei et al., 2005).
Top management team heterogeneity or diversity represents the degree of difference incharacteristics of team members, mainly including age, tenure, function, educational level andspecialty, and can be categorized based on visibility and work-relatedness, for instance, age
heterogeneity is visible heterogeneity, while tenure, education and function heterogeneity belongs
to work-related heterogeneity (Pelled, 1996). Many of the studies indicate that top management
team heterogeneity can facilitate strategic decision making and corporate performance (Carpenter,
2002; Tihanyi et al., 2000; Wiersema & Bantel, 1992), yet it is found to have opposite impacts onorganizational outcomes through its effects on team processes such as communication and conflicts,
which is regarded as the double-edged sword effect of heterogeneity (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992;
Milliken & Martins, 1996; Williams & O’Reilly, 1998).
On the one hand, from the perspective of information and decision-making theory, the heterogeneity
can not only provide top management teams with a board variety of knowledge and information

XMFRemote̲(69014)208128̲大阪大学経済学 第67巻第2・3号(74602) (X4̲単頁) 5 折 2017/12/21 11:20:36

－6－

OSAKA ECONOMIC PAPERS

Vol. 67 Nos. 2・3・4(Tihanyi et al., 2000), but also bring a wide range of different viewpoints and perspectives tocompanies (Wiersema & Bantel, 1992), which is likely to conduce to generate strategic alternatives
and thereby beneficial to the evaluation of corporate strategies (Carpenter, 2002), in turn firm
innovation (Wei & Lau, 2012) and performance (Weinzimmer, 1997), furthermore, with increasing
heterogeneity of top management team corporate innovation activities are more conductive to improvecompany performance (Lyon & Ferrier, 2002).
On the other hand, from the perspective of social categorization theory, individuals often compare
themselves with others and then classify themselves into some social categories by such significant
characteristics as gender, race, age, status, or organizational membership (Williams & O’Reilly,1998). Furthermore, individuals usually have a more favorable impression on these people belonging
to ingroup and may regard others in outgroup as flawed persons (Tajfel, 1982), which is likely to leadto intergroup biases (Van Knippenberg, De Dreu & Homan, 2004) and conflicts (Pelled, Eisenhardt& Xin, 1999), hinder communication and cooperation within team (Chatman & Flynn, 2001), destroy
team cohesion, reduce members’ satisfaction (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). Therefore, based onsocial categorization theory, the top management team heterogeneity is prone to triggering conflicts
between sub-groups in a team, and thereby impeding the cooperation within team and the frequency
of internal communication among team members, in turn, has a negative impact on the organizational
performance (Li & Hambrick, 2005; Smith et al., 1994).
3-1. TMT age
Many of the studies on top management team age (refer to Table 1) mainly focus on the effectof team average age on both strategic decisions (Bantel & Jackson, 1989; Chen, 2011; Flood et al.,
1997; Herrmann & Datta, 2005; Tihanyi et al., 2000; Wiersema & Bantel, 1992) and organizational
performance (Hutzschenreuter & Horstkotte, 2013a; Liu et al., 2012; Mayr, 2011; Pegels & Yang,
2000; Wei et al., 2005).
Top management team age is found to influence team decision making (Taylor, 1975), older
executives, specifically speaking, tend to collect more information from wider perspectives in orderto make more prudent considerations in corporate strategies (Taylor & Dunnette, 1974), thus, thesecompanies with older managers are more likely to sustain risk and take pioneering actions (Flood etal., 1997). In contrast, younger executives are not only eager to alter corporate strategies (Grimm &Smith, 1991; Wiersema & Bantel, 1992), but also able to find the value hidden in risk and are more
willing to take risk (Vroom & Pahl, 1971), in turn boost investment in research and development ofcorporations (Barker & Mueller, 2002), hence, younger top management teams are more inclined toengage in innovation (Bantel & Jackson, 1989) and thereby improve innovation performance (Liuet al., 2012). Furthermore, the younger the executives are, the more confident they are in corporate
operation and management, the more international the firm decisions are (Chen, 2011; Herrmann &Datta, 2005; Tihanyi et al., 2000).
Additionally, top management team age also affects organizational performance (Hutzschenreuter& Horstkotte, 2013a; Mayr, 2011; Wei et al., 2005). Some of the studies find that younger executives

XMFRemote̲(69014)208128̲大阪大学経済学 第67巻第2・3号(74602) (X4̲単頁) 6 折 2017/12/21 11:20:36

December 2017

Top management team characteristics and team processes－7－

are more beneficial to firm growth and performance (Child, 1974; Hart & Mellons, 1970; Pegels &Yang, 2000), since top management teams with more young members have capabilities of generating
strategic assets (e.g. reputation, productivity, operational efficiency) (Pegels & Yang, 2000), whereas
recent research findings confirm that top management team age is positively (Wei et al., 2005) or lessrelated to firm performance (Hutzschenreuter & Horstkotte, 2013a), alternatively, there is a U-shaped
relationship between top management team age and corporate performance (Mayr, 2011).
3-2. TMT age heterogeneity
Age heterogeneity (refer to Table 1) of top management team tends to positively affect corporate
strategies (Bantel & Jackson, 1989; Tihanyi et al., 2000; Wei & Lau, 2012; Wiersema & Bantel,
1992), while it exerts different impacts on organizational outcomes (Boerner, Linkohr & Kiefer, 2011;
Richard & Shelor, 2002; Simons, Pelled & Smith, 1999; Wiersema & Bird, 1993).
TMT age heterogeneity has a noteworthy impact on corporate strategy decisions. Team memberswith different age are likely to experience different events and circumstances, which can influence andshape their values, attitudes and perspectives to a great extent and further facilitates innovation (Bantel& Jackson, 1989; Wei & Lau, 2012). Furthermore, the age heterogeneity is conducive to communicate
and share various thoughts and opinions among team members and thereby accept strategic change,
especially in complex environment (Tihanyi et al., 2000; Wiersema & Bantel, 1992). Hence, TMT age
heterogeneity is beneficial in corporate performance, especially in short-term performance (Boerner,
Linkohr & Kiefer, 2011).
Table 1 Age
TMT Characteristics

Average age

Age heterogeneity

EffectFirm outcomes

Literature

Positive

Pioneering actions

Flood et al., 1997

Positive

Performance

Pegels & Yang, 2000
Wei et al., 2005

Negative

Strategic change

Grimm & Smith, 1991
Wiersema & Bantel, 1992

Negative

Innovation

Bantel & Jackson, 1989
Liu et al., 2012

Negative

Internationalization

Chen, 2011
Herrmann & Datta, 2005
Tihanyi et al., 2000

U-shaped

Performance

Mayr, 2011

No

Performance

Hutzschenreuter & Horstkotte, 2013a

Positive

Strategic change

Tihanyi et al., 2000
Wiersema & Bantel, 1992

Positive

Innovation

Bantel & Jackson, 1989
Wei & Lau, 2012

Positive

Team turnover

Wiersema & Bird, 1993

Positive

Performance

Boerner, Linkohr & Kiefer, 2011

Negative

Performance

Simons, Pelled & Smith, 1999

U-shaped

Performance

Richard & Shelor, 2002

XMFRemote̲(69014)208128̲大阪大学経済学 第67巻第2・3号(74602) (X4̲単頁) 7 折 2017/12/21 11:20:36

－8－

OSAKA ECONOMIC PAPERS

Vol. 67 Nos. 2・3・4

On the other hand, age heterogeneity may negatively affect cohesion and integration of the top
management team and thereby be prone to a high turnover rate of teams (O’Reilly, Caldwell &Barnett, 1989; Wiersema & Bird, 1993). It is also confirmed that age heterogeneity negatively
influences firm performance (Simons, Pelled & Smith, 1999).
Additionally, some research finds that there is a U-shaped relationship between age heterogeneityof top management team and company performance, specifically speaking, age heterogeneity has apositive effect on firm performance at lower level while is negatively associated with organizational
performance at higher level (Richard & Shelor, 2002).
3-3. TMT tenure
Top management team tenure (refer to Table 2) is verified to have a salient impact on strategic
decisions in turn corporate performance (Bantel, 1993b; Boeker, 1997; Carpenter & Fredrickson,
2001; Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1990; Hambrick & D’Aveni, 1992; Keck, 1997; Lee & Park, 2006;
Liu et al., 2012; Michel & Hambrick, 1992; Nielsen B B & Nielsen S, 2013; Srivastava & Lee, 2005;
Sutcliffe, 1994; Tihanyi et al., 2000; Wiersema & Bantel, 1992).
On the one hand, the executives in top management teams with longer tenure may not only have acommon perception about the process of corporate strategic decision making (Iaquinto & Fredrickson,1997) and firm-wide knowledge in order to facilitate team coordination and cohesion (Michel &Hambrick, 1992; Priem, Lyon & Dess, 1999), but are also willing to communicate and share theseknowledge with each other, especially noteworthy information, which is beneficial to perceive theenvironment more accurately (Sutcliffe, 1994), for instance, long-tenured top management teams
stress the importance of corporate internationalization since they can find more opportunities (Carpenter& Fredrickson, 2001; Tihanyi et al., 2000); in contrast, short-tenured top management teams are likely
to have many deficiencies owing to a lack of team cohesion, which leads to strategic mistakes andcorporate decline (Hambrick & D’Aveni, 1992), although these teams are prone to make a formal
strategic plan (Bantel, 1993b). Moreover, it is confirmed that TMT firm tenure has a negative impact
on strategic conformity (Geletkanycz & Hambrick, 1997). Additionally, in these companies withlong-tenured top management teams TMT heterogeneity (e.g. nationality) positively affects corporate
performance, since longer tenure can decrease the affective conflict and the adverse effect of teamdynamics (Nielsen B B & Nielsen S, 2013).
On the other hand, longer tenure tends to keep membership stable and leads team members
to deem that they are able to anticipate others’ thoughts and opinions, which is not conducive tocommunication and interaction among both team members and groups, in turn, negatively influences
team performance (Katz, 1982), firm growth (Keck, 1997) and innovation performance as a result of
the knowledge deficit related to further development of firms (Liu et al., 2012). Furthermore, longtenured top management teams are resistant to making strategic change (Boeker, 1997; Wiersema &Bantel, 1992) and engaging in illegal actions (Daboub et al., 1995), in other words, these teams withlonger tenure are inclined to maintain the strategic persistence and conformity in order to promotethese companies perform consistently with industrial standard (Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1990),

XMFRemote̲(69014)208128̲大阪大学経済学 第67巻第2・3号(74602) (X4̲単頁) 8 折 2017/12/21 11:20:36

December 2017

Top management team characteristics and team processes－9－

thereby companies with these top management teams are reluctant to participate in international
alliances (Lee & Park, 2006). Additionally, top management team tenure has a negative impact on
corporate entrepreneurship in personal computer industry, while there is a positive effect of TMT
tenure on entrepreneurial actions in both telecommunication and brewing industry (Srivastava &Lee, 2005); however, some of the studies indicate that TMT tenure has less influence on corporate
innovation (Daellenbach, McCarthy & Schoenecker, 1999) and team processes (e.g. communication,
integration) (Smith et al., 1994).
3-4. TMT tenure heterogeneity
Tenure heterogeneity (refer to Table 2) of top management team has favorable effects on corporate
strategic choices such as innovation, internationalization and competitive actions (Carpenter &Fredrickson, 2001; Hambrick, Cho & Chen, 1996; Heavey & Simsek, 2013; Nielsen B B & Nielsen
S, 2011; Srivastava & Lee, 2005; Tihanyi et al., 2000; Wei & Lau, 2012; Wiersema & Bantel, 1992),
while there is a contentious relationship between TMT tenure heterogeneity and organizational
performance (Camelo-Ordaz, Hernández-Lara & Valle-Cabrera, 2005; Carpenter, 2002; Greening &Johnson, 1996; Haleblian & Finkelstein, 1993; Kor, 2003; Smith et al., 1994).
Tenure heterogeneity can not only bring top management teams a variety of different opinions tostimulate strategic change of firms (Boeker, 1997; Wiersema & Bantel, 1992) and organizationalinnovation (Heavey & Simsek, 2013; Wei & Lau, 2012), but also help companies avoid disasters
or crises, since it is conducive to predict, analyze and solve potential problems from different
perspectives, which in turn efficiently improve the quality of decision making (Greening & Johnson,
1996) and internal team process, thereby may facilitate team performance (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992)
and firm growth (Hambrick, Cho & Chen, 1996). Furthermore, tenure heterogeneity is positively
associated with competitive actions (e.g. new product introduction), and thus top management teams
with greater heterogeneity in tenure are more likely to take initiate actions as first movers rather
than imitators (Hambrick, Cho & Chen, 1996; Srivastava & Lee, 2005). Additionally, TMT tenure
heterogeneity is found to have a favorable impact on corporate internationalization (Carpenter &Fredrickson, 2001; Nielsen B B & Nielsen S, 2011; Tihanyi et al., 2000).
In contrast, tenure heterogeneity is likely to induce emotional conflict in decision making (Pelled,
Eisenhardt & Xin, 1999) and impede communication among team members owing to lack of sharedexperience and language in an organization, which not only has a negative impact on team integration(O’Reilly, Caldwell & Barnett, 1989) and innovative performance (Camelo-Ordaz, Hernández-Lara& Valle-Cabrera, 2005), but also increases turnover of top management team (Wiersema & Bird,
1993), in turn has a detrimental effect on corporate performance (Haleblian & Finkelstein, 1993;
Smith et al., 1994), especially when companies are confronted with a complex environment (e.g.
internationalization) (Carpenter, 2002). However, some research shows that there is no relationshipbetween TMT tenure heterogeneity and firm growth (Kor, 2003).

XMFRemote̲(69014)208128̲大阪大学経済学 第67巻第2・3号(74602) (X4̲単頁) 9 折 2017/12/21 11:20:36

－ 10 －OSAKA ECONOMIC PAPERS

Vol. 67 Nos. 2・3・4

Table 2 Tenure
TMT Characteristics

Average tenure

Tenureheterogeneity

EffectFirm outcomes

Literature

Positive

Internationalization

Carpenter & Fredrickson, 2001
Tihanyi et al., 2000

Negative

International alliances

Lee & Park, 2006

Negative

Formal strategic plan

Bantel, 1993b

Negative

Strategic change

Boeker, 1997
Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1990
Wiersema & Bantel, 1992

Negative

Corporate decline

Hambrick & D’Aveni, 1992

Negative

Firm growthKeck, 1997

Negative

Innovation
performance

Liu et al., 2012

Opposing

Entrepreneurship in
different industries

Srivastava & Lee, 2005

Moderating

TMT heterogeneity andfirm performanceNielsen B B & Nielsen S, 2013

No

Innovation

Daellenbach, McCarthy & Schoenecker, 1999

No

Team processes

Smith et al., 1994

Positive

Strategic change

Boeker, 1997
Wiersema & Bantel, 1992

Positive

Innovation

Heavey & Simsek, 2013
Wei & Lau, 2012

Positive

Avoid crisis

Greening & Johnson, 1996

Positive

Competitive actions

Hambrick, Cho & Chen, 1996
Srivastava & Lee, 2005

Positive

Internationalization

Carpenter & Fredrickson, 2001
Nielsen B B & Nielsen S, 2011
Tihanyi et al., 2000

Positive

Team turnover

Wiersema & Bird, 1993

Negative

Innovation

Camelo-Ordaz, Hernández-Lara & ValleCabrera, 2005

Negative

Performance

Carpenter, 2002
Haleblian & Finkelstein, 1993
Smith et al., 1994

No

Firm growthKor, 2003

3-5. TMT educational level
Most of the studies on top management team educational level (refer to Table 3) concentrate uponits effects on corporate innovation (Bantel & Jackson, 1989; Camelo-Ordaz, Hernández-Lara &Valle-Cabrera, 2005; Daellenbach, McCarthy & Schoenecker, 1999; Flood et al., 1997; Kimberly& Evanisko, 1981) and strategic change (Gannon, Smith & Grimm, 1992; Hambrick, Cho & Chen,
1996; Tihanyi et al., 2000; Wiersema & Bantel, 1992).
Educational level can reflect managers’ cognitive abilities (Hitt & tyler, 1991) and high-educatedmanagers are more likely to make different managerial decisions (Hitt & Barr, 1989), which is
conducive to promoting innovation (Hambrick & Mason, 1984). Furthermore, top managers who

XMFRemote̲(69014)208128̲大阪大学経済学 第67巻第2・3号(74602) (X4̲単頁) 10 折 2017/12/21 11:20:36

December 2017

Top management team characteristics and team processes－ 11 －

are highly educated have positive attitudes towards corporate innovation in virtue of their abilities ofsolving complicated problems, thus they are more willing to engage in organizational innovation (e.g.
technological and administrative innovation) (Bantel & Jackson, 1989; Kimberly & Evanisko, 1981).
Top management team educational level is also proved to positively and directly affect corporate
innovative performance (Camelo-Ordaz, Hernández-Lara & Valle-Cabrera, 2005). In contrast, TMT
educational level is negatively associated with firm pioneering behaviors, since pioneering companies
require fast information processing and decision making which is more appropriate for less educated
top executives rather than high-educated managers (Flood et al., 1997). However, some empiricalresearch finds that there is no relationship between TMT educational level and innovation (Daellenbach,
McCarthy & Schoenecker, 1999).
On the other hand, top management teams with high-educated executives are not only willing to be
first movers (Gannon, Smith & Grimm, 1992) and adept at predicting competitors’ moves in order totake competitive actions aggressively and contribute to firm growth and performance (Hambrick, Cho& Chen, 1996), but also have ability to perceive the potential opportunities brought by globalization
so as to be actively involved in corporate international activities (Tihanyi et al., 2000). Furthermore,
it is confirmed that TMT educational level has a positive impact on strategic change for company,
since high-educated managers are able to perceive the necessity of strategic adjustment (Wiersema& Bantel, 1992), which in turn can help firms effectively avoid risks (Greening & Johnson, 1996).
Additionally, top management teams with high-educated members are likely to have more bridging
social capital, which is beneficial for companies to find new business opportunities and in turnimprove organizational performance (Shipilov & Danis, 2006).
3-6. TMT educational level heterogeneity
Educational level heterogeneity (refer to Table 3) of top management team exerts opposing impacts
on both corporate strategic decision making (Knight et al., 1999; Simons, Pelled & Smith, 1999; Wei& Lau, 2012) and firm performance (Smith et al., 1994; Wei et al., 2005).
TMT heterogeneity in educational level is prone to emotional conflict and thereby increasing thedifficulty of reaching an agreement, which in turn hampers strategic consensus (Knight et al., 1999),
hence TMT educational level heterogeneity may exert a detrimental impact on firm performance,
especially in China since Chinese culture underscores deference and harmony and thereby it is moredifficult to obtain benefits from heterogeneity of top management team (Wei et al., 2005).
However, TMT educational level heterogeneity is found to have a direct positive effect on corporate
innovation (Wei & Lau, 2012) and firm performance, since companies facing a high-velocity
environment have a strong desire for innovation and thereby neutralize the unfavorable effect ofdiverse educational levels (Smith et al., 1994). Additionally, it is confirmed that the heterogeneity
in educational level exerts an unfavorable effect on decision comprehensiveness, whereas positively
influences firm performance under the circumstance of great debates within top management teamsince debates can trigger a variety of experienced voices in order to prompt team members to actively
participate in discussions of a decision (Simons, Pelled & Smith, 1999).

XMFRemote̲(69014)208128̲大阪大学経済学 第67巻第2・3号(74602) (X4̲単頁) 11 折 2017/12/21 11:20:36

－ 12 －OSAKA ECONOMIC PAPERS

Vol. 67 Nos. 2・3・4

Table 3 Educational level
TMT Characteristics

Averageeducational level

Educational level
heterogeneity

EffectFirm outcomes

Literature

Positive

Strategic change

Wiersema & Bantel, 1992

Positive

Innovation

Bantel & Jackson, 1989
Camelo-Ordaz, Hernández-Lara & ValleCabrera, 2005

Positive

Internationalization

Tihanyi et al., 2000

Positive

Competitive actions

Gannon, Smith & Grimm, 1992
Hambrick, Cho & Chen, 1996

Positive

Performance

Shipilov & Danis, 2006

Negative

Pioneering actions

Flood et al., 1997

No

Innovation

Daellenbach, McCarthy & Schoenecker,
1999

Positive

Innovation

Wei & Lau, 2012

Positive

Performance

Smith et al., 1994

Positive

Performance under
great debates

Simons, Pelled & Smith, 1999

Negative

Decisioncomprehensiveness

Simons, Pelled & Smith, 1999

Negative

Strategic consensus

Knight et al., 1999

Negative

Performance

Wei et al., 2005

3-7. TMT educational specialty
Educational specialty background (refer to Table 4) of the top management team is associated withcorporate strategic choice and organizational performance (Grimm & Smith, 1991; Hambrick &Mason, 1984; Shipilov & Danis, 2006; Wiersema & Bantel, 1992).
Formal education individuals received can reflect their cognitive types and values, for instance,compared with managers getting education in business or arts, these executives who received
engineering education obviously have cognitive difference in decision making (Hambrick & Mason,
1984), and it is confirmed that top managers’ educational specialties affect their strategic choices inassessing acquisition targets (Hitt & Tyler, 1991).
Top executives who got education in science or engineering pay more attention to process
improvement and product innovation, and they are not only more likely to change corporate strategies(Wiersema & Bantel, 1992), but also willing to increase investment in research and development,
while those with legal degree take no account of product development (Barker & Mueller, 2002).
Additionally, it is found that top managers with MBA degrees are inclined to alter organizational
strategies, since they have abilities to comprehensively analyze the internal and external businessenvironment and adjust firm strategies in time (Grimm & Smith, 1991), furthermore, these top
management teams comprised of executives who received socioeconomic education hold more social
capital and perform better in companies (Shipilov & Danis, 2006).

XMFRemote̲(69014)208128̲大阪大学経済学 第67巻第2・3号(74602) (X4̲単頁) 12 折 2017/12/21 11:20:36

December 2017

Top management team characteristics and team processes－ 13 －

3-8. TMT educational specialty heterogeneity
Educational specialty heterogeneity (refer to Table 4) of top management team is positively
associated with organizational strategies such as innovation, globalization, competitive actions,strategic change (Bantel & Jackson, 1989; Carpenter & Fredrickson, 2001; Hambrick, Cho & Chen,
1996; Wiersema & Bantel, 1992), yet there is a controversial relationship between TMT educational
specialty heterogeneity and corporate performance (Amason, Shrader & Tompson, 2006; Auden,
Shackman & Onken, 2006; Carpenter, 2002).
Educational specialty heterogeneity facilitates strategic decision making (Bantel, 1993a) since it can
provide top management teams with a wide-ranging and diversity of perspectives, which is beneficial
to consider and solve some complex problems specially under the international circumstances(Tihanyi et al., 2000), in turn promotes organizational innovation (Bantel & Jackson, 1989), strategicchange (Wiersema & Bantel, 1992) and corporate globalization (Carpenter & Fredrickson, 2001).
Furthermore, top management teams with greater heterogeneity in educational specialty are more
inclined to undertake initiatives in competitive moves, and companies with these top management
teams perform better in both profits and market share (Hambrick, Cho & Chen, 1996). Additionally,
it is confirmed that TMT educational specialty heterogeneity exerts a favorable effect on firm
performance especially when companies are confronted with many internationalization decisions(Carpenter, 2002; Nielsen B B & Nielsen S, 2011).
In contrast, the top management team heterogeneity in educational specialty is found to negatively
influence new venture performance when these new ventures are at a high level of novelty, since theeducational specialty heterogeneity is likely to hamper behavioral integration within top management
Table 4 Educational specialty
TMT Characteristics

EffectScience or engineering
education

Positive

Strategic change

Firm outcomes

Wiersema & Bantel, 1992

Literature

Positive

Innovation

Barker & Mueller, 2002

Socioeconomic
education

Positive

Social capital
Performance

Shipilov & Danis, 2006

MBA degrees

Positive

Strategic change

Grimm & Smith, 1991

Legal degrees

Negative

Product development

Barker & Mueller, 2002

Positive

Strategic change

Wiersema & Bantel, 1992

Positive

Innovation

Bantel & Jackson, 1989

Positive

Globalization

Carpenter & Fredrickson, 2001

Positive

Competitive actions
Performance

Hambrick, Cho & Chen, 1996

Positive

Performance underinternationalization

Carpenter, 2002
Nielsen B B & Nielsen S, 2011

Negative

New venture
performance

Amason, Shrader & Tompson, 2006

No

Performance

Auden, Shackman & Onken, 2006

No

International expansion
strategies

Nielsen B B & Nielsen S, 2011

Educational specialty
heterogeneity

XMFRemote̲(69014)208128̲大阪大学経済学 第67巻第2・3号(74602) (X4̲単頁) 13 折 2017/12/21 11:20:36

－ 14 －OSAKA ECONOMIC PAPERS

Vol. 67 Nos. 2・3・4

teams (Amason, Shrader & Tompson, 2006). However, some research shows that TMT educational
specialty heterogeneity is less related to corporate performance (Auden, Shackman & Onken, 2006)
and international expansion strategies (Nielsen B B & Nielsen S, 2011).
3-9. TMT functional background
Functional background (refer to Table 5) of top management team is related to corporate decision
making, especially in competition, internationalization and diversification, in turn firm performance(Carpenter & Fredrickson, 2001; Finkelstein, 1992; Gannon, Smith & Grimm, 1992; Govindarajan,
1989; Hambrick & D’Aveni, 1992; Hambrick & Mason, 1984; Michel & Hambrick, 1992; Sambharya,
1996; Tihanyi et al., 2000).
Functional background of top executives may influence their cognitive model, in turn strategic
decisions, especially in acquisition appraisals of target corporations (Hitt & Tyler, 1991). Top
managers who obtained career experience in marketing, engineering or research and development
are inclined to attach importance to investment in product development, while those with suchcareer experience as legal, production or operation are reluctant to spend too much on research anddevelopment (Barker & Mueller, 2002), and those with finance-functional background are more likely
to pay close attention to corporate acquisition and diversification since they are adept at establishing
an appropriate capital structure to achieve a better financial synergy (Finkelstein, 1992), while top
managers with such experience as law, marketing, finance and general management are more likely tohave the commitment to extant strategies (Geletkanycz & Black, 2001).
Furthermore, top managers’ functional background is also associated with the corporate competitive
strategy, for instance, executives with manufacturing, research and development experience arebeneficial to performance and effectiveness of implementing a competitive strategy, while top
managers who have experience in accounting and finance negatively influence performance(Govindarajan, 1989). However, the longer the top management teams take to have experience in a
specific industry, the more unwilling they are to make the first move, which leads these firms to lose
opportunities of establishing competitive advantages (Gannon, Smith & Grimm, 1992). Additionally,
top management teams with greater international experience are inclined to encourage companies topromote the internationalization (Carpenter & Fredrickson, 2001; Sambharya, 1996; Tihanyi et al.,2000).
In highly interdependent companies, top management teams are comprised of more executives who
have such functional careers such as marketing and sales, research and development, production andoperation, since they are required to make strategic decisions in market and product development;
in unrelated or diversified firms, top management teams are likely to need members with suchfunctional experience as law, finance and accounting (Michel & Hambrick, 1992), although suchcareer experience is not part of corporate critical activities (Hambrick & Mason, 1984). Furthermore,
it is confirmed that top management team depravation is likely to induce firm deterioration, speciallyspeaking, there are fewer top management team members with such functional careers as researchand development, marketing and sales, production and operation in bankrupt enterprises than those

XMFRemote̲(69014)208128̲大阪大学経済学 第67巻第2・3号(74602) (X4̲単頁) 14 折 2017/12/21 11:20:36

December 2017

Top management team characteristics and team processes－ 15 －

in survivor companies, whereas these core functions are essential for healthy corporations since they
cover the entire process of product from design to sale (Hambrick & D’Aveni, 1992).
3-10. TMT functional background heterogeneity
Top management team heterogeneity in functional background (refer to Table 5) reveals opposing
influences not only on corporate strategic choices (Bantel & Jackson, 1989; Carpenter & Fredrickson,
2001; Hambrick, Cho & Chen, 1996; Knight et al., 1999; Liu et al., 2012; Nielsen B B & Nielsen S,
2011), but also on organizational performance (Camelo-Ordaz, Hernández-Lara & Valle-Cabrera,
2005; Cannella, Park, & Lee, 2008; Carpenter, 2002; Greening & Johnson, 1996; Haleblian &Finkelstein, 1993; Keck, 1997; Nielsen B B & Nielsen S, 2013; Simons, Pelled & Smith, 1999; Wei etal., 2005; Weinzimmer, 1997).
Functional background heterogeneity is likely to drive cognitive conflict (Cai, Liu & Yu, 2013) thathas more favorable effects on cognitive task performance than emotional conflict (Pelled, Eisenhardt& Xin, 1999), and it also facilitates the generation of alternative solutions, which is beneficial for
top management teams to solve some complex issues, thereby accelerating organizational innovation(Bantel & Jackson, 1989; Liu et al., 2012) and strategic reorientation (Lant, Milliken & Batra, 1992),
further avoiding potential crises (Greening & Johnson, 1996), meanwhile functional heterogeneity is
negatively associated with commitment to existing corporate strategies (Geletkanycz & Black, 2001).
Furthermore, TMT functional heterogeneity is positively associated not only with strategic decision
making (Bantel, 1993a) such as corporate competitive actions (Hambrick, Cho & Chen, 1996) andinternational expansion decisions (Nielsen B B & Nielsen S, 2011), but also with organizational
performance (Nielsen B B & Nielsen S, 2013; Wei et al., 2005) in both small and large companies(Weinzimmer, 1997), especially when most of the top management team members work at thesame location (Cannella, Park, & Lee, 2008) and under the turbulent environment (Keck, 1997).
Additionally, some empirical research indicates that there is no direct relationship between TMTfunctional heterogeneity and firm performance such as financial and growth performance (Cai, Liu& Yu, 2013), whereas a positive relationship between TMT functional background heterogeneity andcorporate innovative performance appears when strategic consensus on innovation is reached within
top management teams (Camelo-Ordaz, Hernández-Lara & Valle-Cabrera, 2005).
On the other hand, the functional heterogeneity is not only prone to induce affective conflict (Cai,
Liu & Yu, 2013) and further interfere with agreement seeking and strategic consensus (Knight et al.,1999), but also aggravates the problem of stereotypes that is caused by ingroup-outgroup prejudice,which inhibits team cohesion and communication among team members, in turn impedes information
sharing, unit performance (Bundersonm & Sutcliffe, 2002) and even firm internationalization specially
under the uncertain environment (Carpenter & Fredrickson, 2001). Furthermore, it is confirmed that
there is a negative relationship between functional background heterogeneity and firm performance(Haleblian & Finkelstein, 1993; Simons, Pelled & Smith, 1999), especially in companies with a higher
degree of internationalization (Carpenter, 2002). Additionally, although functional heterogeneity
can promote external communication that conduces to innovation, it is harmful to team performance

XMFRemote̲(69014)208128̲大阪大学経済学 第67巻第2・3号(74602) (X4̲単頁) 15 折 2017/12/21 11:20:36

－ 16 －OSAKA ECONOMIC PAPERS

Vol. 67 Nos. 2・3・4(Ancona & Caldwell, 1992) and environmental perceptions (Sutcliffe, 1994).
Table 5 Functional background
TMT Characteristics

EffectFirm outcomes

Manufacturing or R&D
function

Positive

Competitive strategy
Performance

Govindarajan, 1989

Marketing, engineering or
R&D function

Positive

Product development

Barker & Mueller, 2002

Law, accounting or financefunction

Positive

Diversification

Finkelstein, 1992
Michel & Hambrick, 1992

Law, marketing, finance orgeneral management function

Positive

Commitment to extant
strategies

Geletkanycz & Black, 2001

International function

Positive

Internationalization

Carpenter & Fredrickson, 2001
Sambharya, 1996
Tihanyi et al., 2000

Legal, production or operation
function

Negative

Innovation

Barker & Mueller, 2002

Accounting or finance function

Negative

Performance

Govindarajan, 1989

R&D, marketing and sales,
production and operation
function

Negative

Firm deterioration

Hambrick & D’Aveni, 1992

Positive

Strategic reorientation

Lant, Milliken & Batra, 1992

Positive

Innovation

Bantel & Jackson, 1989
Camelo-Ordaz, Hernández-Lara &Valle-Cabrera, 2005
Liu et al., 2012

Positive

Avoid potential crisis

Greening & Johnson, 1996

Positive

Competitive actions

Hambrick, Cho & Chen, 1996

Positive

International expansion
decisions

Nielsen B B & Nielsen S, 2011

Positive

Cognitive conflict
Affective conflictCai, Liu & Yu, 2013

Positive

Performance

Cannella, Park, & Lee, 2008
Keck, 1997
Nielsen B B & Nielsen S, 2013
Wei et al., 2005
Weinzimmer, 1997

Negative

Commitment to existing
strategies

Geletkanycz & Black, 2001

Negative

Strategic consensus

Knight et al., 1999

Negative

Internationalization

Carpenter & Fredrickson, 2001

Negative

Environmental
perceptions

Sutcliffe, 1994

Negative

Performance

Carpenter, 2002
Haleblian & Finkelstein, 1993
Simons, Pelled & Smith, 1999

No

Performance

Cai, Liu & Yu, 2013

Functional backgroundheterogeneity

XMFRemote̲(69014)208128̲大阪大学経済学 第67巻第2・3号(74602) (X4̲単頁) 16 折 2017/12/21 11:20:36

Literature

December 2017

Top management team characteristics and team processes－ 17 －

4. Top management team processes
Top management team processes have significant influences on organizational outcomes (Carmeli& Schaubroeck, 2006; Carmeli, Schaubroeck & Tishler, 2011; Hambrick, 1997; Lubatkin et al.,2006; Ou et al., 2014; Raes, Bruch & De Jong, 2013), and meanwhile there is the two-way causality
between top management team composition and team processes (Eisenhardt & Schoonhoven, 1990;
Ensley, Pearson & Amason, 2002; Finkelstein, 1992; Knight et al., 1999; Pelled, 1996; Simsek et al.,2005; Smith et al., 1994). Antecedents and consequences of team processes will be summarized andanalyzed through the five following process factors: leadership, cohesion, conflict, communicationand integration.
4-1. Leadership
Most of the recent studies on top management team leadership (refer to Table 6) lay stress on theimpact of different leader’s personalities (De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2008; Ou et al., 2014; Peterson
et al., 2003) and leadership styles (Carmeli, Schaubroeck & Tishler, 2011; Ensley, Pearson & Pearce,
2003; Flood et al., 2000) on team and corporation.
Chief executive officer, as a core of top management team, affects team composition andperformance tremendously (Finkelstein, 1992). Besides, CEO always holds most power in a top
management team, and the more unequal the power distribution within the team is, the greater the
corporate performance is; in other words when CEO is more powerful than other team members, thetop management team operates more effectively and creates better performance for the company (Smithet al., 2006).
Leader is, as an intermediary between the team and external environment, essential to a team, andresponsible for coordinating individual goals with team goal, so that the team gains higher cohesion
and efficiency (Zaccaro & Klimoski, 2002). CEO personalities (e.g. conscientiousness, emotional
stability, agreeableness, extraversion, openness) can influence top management team dynamics (e.g.
concern for legalism, sense of control over the environment, team cohesion, intellectual flexibility,
leader dominance, team risk-taking, decentralization of power), in turn organizational performance(Peterson et al., 2003), for instance, a modest CEO is willing to delegate more authority to otherexecutives, which can improve integration within the top management team and further enhance
middle managers’ positive responses (e.g. affective commitment, job involvement and performance)in the empowering company (Ou et al., 2014). Additionally, the higher social responsibility the leaders
have, the more effective the top management teams are (De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2008).
Leadership styles may also affect decision-making consensus and top management teams’
effectiveness. Both of the authoritarian and transactional leaderships have negative impacts on
decision-making consensus; laissez faire leadership has a direct negative effect on effectivenessof top management team; while only transformational leadership has a direct positive influence
team effectiveness; additionally, the higher the decision-making consensus is, the greater the top
management team effectiveness is (Flood et al., 2000). By contrast, empowering leadership isbeneficial to the integration and self-efficacy of the top management team, in turn the improvement

XMFRemote̲(69014)208128̲大阪大学経済学 第67巻第2・3号(74602) (X4̲単頁) 17 折 2017/12/21 11:20:36

－ 18 －OSAKA ECONOMIC PAPERS

Vol. 67 Nos. 2・3・4

of corporate performance (Carmeli, Schaubroeck & Tishler, 2011). Furthermore, shared leadershipis associated with cohesion and collective vision, further has an impact on new venture performance(Ensley, Pearson & Pearce, 2003).
Table 6 Leadership
Team processes

EffectOutcomes

Powerful CEOs

Positive

Firm performance

Smith et al., 2006

Literature

Modest CEOs

Positive

TMT integration
Middle managers’ responses

Ou et al., 2014

Empowering
leadership

Positive

TMT integration
Firm performance

Carmeli, Schaubroeck & Tishler, 2011

Leaders’ social
responsibility

Positive

TMT effectiveness

De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2008

Leadership styleSignificant

Decision-making consensus
TMT effectiveness

Flood et al., 2000

Shared leadership

Significant

TMT cohesion
New venture performance

Ensley, Pearson & Pearce, 2003

CEO personalities

Significant

TMT dynamics
Firm performancePeterson et al., 2003

4-2. Cohesion
Most of the research on top management team cohesion (refer to Table 7) emphasize on thedimensions of cohesion (Bollen & Hoyle, 1990) and the effects on firm performance (Ensley, Pearson& Amason, 2002; Michalisin, Karau & Tangpong, 2004).
Team cohesion is a result of the combination of individual, organizational, social and situational
forces, and enhances members’ attraction to the team, in turn inclination to remain in the team(Festinger, 1950; Hogg, 1992). Cohesion can be perceived by every member of the team. Perceived
cohesion is team members’ evaluation of the relationship between the team and themselves,
encompassing a feeling of morale and a sense of belonging to the particular team, and these teammembers perceiving cohesion show more trust, affection and satisfaction to other members in the team(Bollen & Hoyle, 1990).
From the resource-based view top management team cohesion is, as a strategic asset, a kindof relatively unique and immobile resources, and thus generates superior and sustainable returns(Michalisin, Karau & Tangpong, 2004). Top management teams with higher cohesion have the stable
relationship and cooperation among team members, which reduce the waste of resources from various
conflicts, in turn increase the firm performance of new ventures (Ensley, Pearson & Amason, 2002).
Additionally, the top management teams have higher cohesion in the family-owned corporations thanin the nonfamily new ventures (Ensley & Pearson, 2005). However, from the perspective of the groupthinking, cohesion causes that individual opinions become a growing convergence with collective
opinions and the lack of objective and multi-angle analysis, which are detrimental to decision quality
and organizational performance (Janis, 1972, 1982).

XMFRemote̲(69014)208128̲大阪大学経済学 第67巻第2・3号(74602) (X4̲単頁) 18 折 2017/12/21 11:20:36

December 2017

Top management team characteristics and team processes－ 19 －

Table 7 Cohesion
Team processes
Cohesion

EffectOutcomes

Literature

Positive

Superior and sustainable returns

Michalisin, Karau & Tangpong, 2004

Positive

Firm performance

Ensley, Pearson & Amason, 2002

Negative

Conflicts

Ensley, Pearson & Amason, 2002

Higher cohesion in family firms

Ensley & Pearson, 2005

Cohesion dimensions

Bollen & Hoyle, 1990

4-3. ConflictResearch on top management team conflict (refer to Table 8) mainly focuses on two aspects: impactsof the team conflict on the process of strategic choice (Amason, 1996; Bettenhausen & Murningham
1985; Jehn, 1997; Knight et al., 1999; Schweiger, Sandberg & Ragan, 1986; Schwenk, 1990) andorganizational outcomes (Cai, Liu & Yu, 2013; Ensley & Pearce, 2001; Hambrick et al., 2001; Li &Hambrick, 2005; Porter & Lilly, 1996; Qian, Cao & Takeuchi, 2013), and antecedent factors causing
team conflict, such as team diversity (Cai, Liu & Yu, 2013; Eisenhardt & Schoonhoven, 1990;
Knight et al., 1999; Pelled, 1996), team value (Choi & Cho, 2011; Jehn, 1994), team size (Amason& Sapienza, 1997; Parayitam, Olson & Bao, 2010), past performance (Amason & Mooney, 1999;
Peterson & Behfar, 2003), team cohesion (Ensley & Pearce, 2001; Ensley, Pearson & Amason, 2002),
and team integration (Camelo-Ordaz, García-Cruz & Sousa-Ginel, 2014).
Different conflict types of top management team have significant influence on strategic decision
making and firm performance. Conflict is categorized into two types: cognitive conflict and affective
conflict. Cognitive conflict is usually task-oriented and focusing on how to accomplish the goal bymeans of different ways among team members, on the other hand, affective conflict is relationship or
emotion-oriented and caused by interpersonal opposition and disaffection (Amason, 1996; Amason &Sapienza, 1997; Jehn, 1995). The greater affective conflict lowers affective acceptance and decisionquality (Amason, 1996), further reduces member satisfaction within the top management team andincrease divergence of opinion further influencing strategic consensus negatively (Knight et al.,1999), in turn results in behavioral disintegration (Li & Hambrick, 2005) and an unsatisfactory firm
performance (Cai, Liu & Yu, 2013; Ensley & Pearce, 2001; Li & Hambrick, 2005), and hinders
corporate innovation (Qian, Cao & Takeuchi, 2013). In contrast, cognitive conflict can motivate
team members to generate more different ideas from diverse perspectives (Amason & Schweiger,
1994; Jehn, 1995) and promote understanding and affective acceptance among TMT members(Amason, 1996) in order to establish a platform of sharing and discussing those thoughts, which is
conducive to improve the quality of decision making (Schweiger, Sandberg & Ragan, 1986; Schwenk,
1990), therefore, it is positively associated not only with shared strategic cognition (Bettenhausen& Murningham 1985; Jehn, 1997) but also with firm innovation (Qian, Cao & Takeuchi, 2013)and corporate performance such as firm growth, profit, revenues (Cai, Liu & Yu, 2013; Ensley &Pearce, 2001); meanwhile the direct relationship between conflict and team performance is also
found in project team (Porter & Lilly, 1996); there is, in addition, another possibility of a curvilinear

XMFRemote̲(69014)208128̲大阪大学経済学 第67巻第2・3号(74602) (X4̲単頁) 19 折 2017/12/21 11:20:36

－ 20 －OSAKA ECONOMIC PAPERS

Vol. 67 Nos. 2・3・4

relationship between cognitive conflict and firm performance (Hambrick et al., 2001).
Top management team conflicts are likely to be affected by some antecedent factors. Diversity can
not only tend to cause individual cognitive differences and the emergence of in-group and out-group(Williams & O’Reilly, 1998), but also lead to a decrease in communication within a team (Smith et al.,1994) and the lack of mutual understanding among team members, in turn increases the likelihood of
conflict (Eisenhardt & Schoonhoven, 1990; Knight et al., 1999; Pelled, 1996), for instance, the greater
functional diversity a team has, the more frequently the affective conflict within the team happens (Cai,
Table 8 Conflict
Team processes

Cognitive conflict

Affective conflict

EffectOutcomes

Positive

Understanding
Affective acceptanceAmason, 1996

Positive

Decision quality

Schweiger, Sandberg & Ragan, 1986
Schwenk, 1990

Positive

Shared strategic cognition

Bettenhausen & Murningham 1985
Jehn, 1997

Positive

Firm innovation

Qian, Cao & Takeuchi, 2013

Positive

Firm performance

Cai, Liu & Yu, 2013
Ensley & Pearce, 2001

Curvilinear

Firm performance

Hambrick et al., 2001

Positive

Disintegration

Li & Hambrick, 2005

Negative

Affective acceptance
Decision quality

Amason, 1996

Negative

Strategic consensus

Knight et al., 1999

Negative

Firm innovation

Qian, Cao & Takeuchi, 2013

Negative

Firm performance

Cai, Liu & Yu, 2013
Ensley & Pearce, 2001
Li & Hambrick, 2005

Cognitive and affective conflicts can be transformed into each other

Antecedents

Literature

EffectChoi & Cho, 2011
Mooney, Holahan & Amason, 2007
Parayitam, Olson & Bao, 2010
Peterson & Behfar, 2003
Simons & Peterson, 2000
Yang & Mossholder, 2004

Team processes

Literature

Functional diversity

Positive

Affective conflictCai, Liu & Yu, 2013
Knight et al., 1999

Value diversity

Positive

Cognitive conflict
Affective conflict

Choi & Cho, 2011

Openness

Positive

Cognitive conflict

Amason & Sapienza, 1997

Team size

Positive

Cognitive conflict
Affective conflict

Amason & Sapienza, 1997
Parayitam, Olson & Bao, 2010

Positive

Cognitive conflict

Negative

Affective conflict

Ensley & Pearce, 2001
Ensley, Pearson & Amason, 2002

TMT integration

Negative

Affective conflict

Camelo-Ordaz, García-Cruz & Sousa-Ginel, 2014

Past performance

Significant

Cognitive conflict
Affective conflict

Amason & Mooney, 1999
Peterson & Behfar, 2003

TMT cohesion

XMFRemote̲(69014)208128̲大阪大学経済学 第67巻第2・3号(74602) (X4̲単頁) 20 折 2017/12/21 11:20:36

December 2017

Top management team characteristics and team processes－ 21 －

Liu & Yu, 2013; Knight et al., 1999); additionally, it is demonstrated that there are positive effects ofvalue diversity on both cognitive and affective conflicts in a team (Choi & Cho, 2011), on the contrary,value similarity among team members can reduce conflicts within the team (Jehn, 1994). There are
more cognitive and affective conflicts in larger teams than in smaller teams (Amason & Sapienza,
1997; Parayitam, Olson & Bao, 2010), wherein openness has only a positive influence on cognitive
conflict (Amason & Sapienza, 1997). Negative feedback on past team performance increases cognitive
and affective conflicts within a team (Peterson & Behfar, 2003); meanwhile past performance oforganization also has a significantly negative influence on affective conflict, yet it has less impact
on cognitive conflict (Amason & Mooney, 1999). Cohesion can increase cognitive conflict while
decreasing affective conflict, especially in new ventures’ top management teams (Ensley & Pearce,
2001; Ensley, Pearson & Amason, 2002); also, behavioral integration tends to reduce emotional
conflict within a top management team (Camelo-Ordaz, García-Cruz & Sousa-Ginel, 2014).
Additionally, cognitive and affective conflicts can be transformed into each other within a top
management team (Choi & Cho, 2011; Mooney, Holahan & Amason, 2007; Parayitam, Olson & Bao,
2010; Peterson & Behfar, 2003; Simons & Peterson, 2000; Yang & Mossholder, 2004), for instance,
affective conflict will be triggered when cognitive conflict becomes harsher and harsher (Parayitam,
Olson & Bao, 2010), trust, however, can decelerate the detrimental transformation, that is to say when
there is a high level of trust in a top management team, cognitive conflict will not be transformed into
affective conflict (Simons & Peterson, 2000).
4-4. Communication
Communication (refer to Table 9) can promote social interaction and is an important subject onteam behavior research. Team members communicate and share information with each other mainly
through two essential channels: formal channel (e.g. formal written documents and structured
meetings) and informal channel (spontaneous conversations and unstructured meetings) (Smithet al., 1994). Some previous research on communication mostly includes: the effects of different
conditions on communication (Amason & Sapienza, 1997; Iaquinto & Fredrickson, 1997; Tjosvold &Deemer, 1980), and the opposite influences of communication on making decision and organizational
performance (Iaquinto & Fredrickson, 1997; Smith et al., 1994).
Competitive relationship induces closed-mindedness and insecurity, which not only hinders
communication between members but also leads to a difficulty in accepting the other’s view andposition, in turn failure to come to an agreement; on the other hand cooperative relationship brings
openness and positive effect, members, in other words, are willing to communicate and understandeach other, which is conducive to reach an agreement (Tjosvold & Deemer, 1980). Team norms canalso affect communication and interaction among team members, for instance team members are more
willing to express their own opinions on the work and even the concern for others in the circumstancesof an open norm (Amason & Sapienza, 1997). Additionally, agreement can not only reduce barriers tocommunication but also accelerate cooperation, thus leads to an improvement in the quality of teamdecision making and organizational performance (Iaquinto & Fredrickson, 1997).

XMFRemote̲(69014)208128̲大阪大学経済学 第67巻第2・3号(74602) (X4̲単頁) 21 折 2017/12/21 11:20:36

－ 22 －OSAKA ECONOMIC PAPERS

Vol. 67 Nos. 2・3・4

However, it is demonstrated that communication frequency has a negative impact on performanceoutcome. The high frequency of communication shows there is a lot of disagreement and conflict ina team, which causes top management team members have to spend a plenty of time and effort incoordinating relationships and reaching a consensus rather than completing a given work, in turn,negatively influence performance outcome; in contrast, a small amount of communication is likely toindicate that the team is working well and the performance is satisfactory (Smith et al., 1994).
Table 9 Communication
Team processes
Communication

EffectNegative

Antecedents

EffectCompetitive relationship

NegativeOpen team norm

Positive

Agreement

Positive

Outcomes
Performance

Literature
Smith et al., 1994

Team processes

Literature
Tjosvold & Deemer, 1980

Communication

Amason & Sapienza, 1997
Iaquinto & Fredrickson, 1997

4-5. Integration
Team integration (refer to Table 10) is a kind of collective interaction in thinking and action
among top management team members, including the quantity and quality of information exchange,
cooperative behavior and joint decision making (Hambrick, 1994). The recent research on top
management team integration mostly encompasses two aspects: antecedent determinants of behavioral
integration (Carmeli, Schaubroeck & Tishler, 2011; Hambrick et al., 2001; Li & Hambrick, 2005; Ou
et al., 2014; Simsek et al., 2005) and effects of team integration on organizational outcome (Carmeli& Schaubroeck, 2006; Carmeli, Schaubroeck & Tishler, 2011; Chen, Lin & Michel, 2010; Hambrick,
1997; Hambrick et al., 2001; Li & Hambrick, 2005; Lubatkin et al., 2006; Ou et al., 2014; Raes, Bruch& De Jong, 2013).
Team integration is usually affected by three levels of antecedent determinants originatingfrom CEO, team and firm. In CEO level, CEO empowering leadership (Carmeli, Schaubroeck &Tishler, 2011; Ou et al., 2014), tenure and collectivistic orientation are positively related to team
integration; in team level, team’s size, goal preference diversity and top management team diversity
are, particularly functional diversity, negatively associated with behavioral integration; in firm level,
corporate performance has a positive impact on team integration while firm size negatively influences
behavioral integration (Simsek et al., 2005). In addition, affective conflict has also a positive effecton behavioral disintegration, yet there is less effect of cognitive conflict on behavioral disintegration(Li & Hambrick, 2005) and the reason is likely to be that there is a curvilinear relationship between
cognitive conflict and behavioral disintegration (Hambrick et al., 2001).
Behavior integration can help top management team improve quality of corporate strategy decision
making, to further retards organizational decline (Carmeli & Schaubroeck, 2006; Hambrick, 1997);
in contrast, the higher the level of team behavioral disintegration is, the more ineffective the firm
performs (Hambrick et al., 2001; Li & Hambrick, 2005), in other words, TMT integration can improve

XMFRemote̲(69014)208128̲大阪大学経済学 第67巻第2・3号(74602) (X4̲単頁) 22 折 2017/12/21 11:20:36

December 2017

Top management team characteristics and team processes－ 23 －

team efficacy, in turn corporate performance (Carmeli, Schaubroeck & Tishler, 2011); furthermore,team integration positively affects productive energy (e.g. cognition, emotion and behavior) within
the company and job engagement and satisfaction among employees (Ou et al., 2014; Raes, Bruch& De Jong, 2013). Additionally, it is likely that there is an intermediary (e.g. action aggressiveness,ambidextrous orientation) between behavioral integration within top management team and firm
performance (Chen, Lin & Michel, 2010; Lubatkin et al., 2006). However, it is confirmed that in thehigh level of team integration, the top management team heterogeneity (e.g. age, tenure, function) has
a negative impact on firm innovation (Wei & Lau, 2012).
Table 10 Integration
Team processes

TMT integration

EffectOutcomes

Positive

Productive energy

Ou et al., 2014
Raes, Bruch & De Jong, 2013

Positive

Firm performance

Carmeli & Schaubroeck, 2006
Carmeli, Schaubroeck & Tishler, 2011

Negative

Firm performance

Hambrick et al., 2001
Li & Hambrick, 2005

Negatively
moderating

Between TMT
heterogeneity and firm
innovation

Wei & Lau, 2012

An intermediary between TMT integration and firm performance
Antecedents

EffectCEO empowering
leadership

Positive

Firm performance

Positive

TMT functional diversity

Negative

Affective conflict

Positive

Cognitive conflict

No

Cognitive conflict

Curvilinear

Team processes

Literature

Chen, Lin & Michel, 2010
Lubatkin et al., 2006
Literature

Team integration

Carmeli, Schaubroeck & Tishler, 2011
Ou et al., 2014

Team integration

Simsek et al., 2005

Disintegration

Li & Hambrick, 2005

Disintegration

Hambrick et al., 2001

5. Environmental influences
Top management teams are often affected by external environments, mainly including national,
industrial and organizational environments. The environmental influence can not only directly act
upon top management team composition and processes (Eisenhardt & Schoonhoven, 1990; Finkelstein& Hambrick, 1990; Geletkanycz, 1997; Glunk, Heijltjes & Olie, 2001; Hambrick, 1981; Palmer &Varner, 2007), but also moderate the relationships among top management team characteristics, teamprocesses and organizational outcomes (Carpenter, 2002; Hmieleski & Ensley, 2007; Huffman &Hegarty, 1993; Keck, 1997; Nielsen B B & Nielsen S, 2013; Srivastava & Lee, 2005; Wei et al., 2005;
Wiersema & Bird, 1993).

XMFRemote̲(69014)208128̲大阪大学経済学 第67巻第2・3号(74602) (X4̲単頁) 23 折 2017/12/21 11:20:36

－ 24 －OSAKA ECONOMIC PAPERS

Vol. 67 Nos. 2・3・4

5-1. National environment
National environment (refer to Table 11) cannot influence the top management team compositionand processes (Geletkanycz, 1997; Glunk, Heijltjes & Olie, 2001; Palmer & Varner, 2007), but also
moderates the relationship between TMT characteristics and organization outcomes (Huffman &Hegarty, 1993; Wei et al., 2005; Wiersema & Bird, 1993).
Plenty of hypotheses on top management teams are much more effective in some societies or
nations than in others, for instance chief executive officers tend to have more autonomy in American
corporations than in other developed countries, which makes it easier to be found that samples from
American companies show more significant impacts of top management team characteristics andprocesses on firm performance than those from others (Hambrick, 2007). In contrast with above
opinion, senior managers do not perform best in top management teams on account of the prevalenceof individualism in the United States, which causes that many top management teams from American
firms cannot meet criteria of the real team and are only some work groups (Katzenbach, 1997).
Many of the studies on top management teams focus on American companies, yet there is muchdifference in composition, characteristics and leadership style of top management teams among
different nations (Glunk, Heijltjes & Olie, 2001; Palmer & Varner, 2007). In a comparative study
on multinational corporations from the Europe, America and Asia, it is found that top management
teams in European companies have more members with international experience than these teams
from American firms; the boards of directors in Asian corporations have more members who are
eligible for internationalization, while in American and European firms the more executives qualify
for internationalization (Palmer & Varner, 2007). Comparing some companies from three different
countries, the research indicates that average age of top management team in The Netherlands ishigher and tenure is longer than in both Great Britain and Denmark; although almost half of top
managers have educational background in business or economics in all three countries, executives
with a degree in engineering or law are most in corporations from The Netherlands; most of the
top managers are female in Great Britain and Denmark, in contrast there is no female executive in
The Netherlands; additionally the dominant leadership style in firms from Great Britain is quite
different from Denmark and The Netherlands, for example main leadership style is masculine basedon independence in Great Britain while feminine based on cooperation in both Denmark and The
Netherlands (Glunk, Heijltjes & Olie, 2001).
There is great limitation to discuss top managers’ leadership behavior and performance without
consideration of national or cultural background, for instance tenure has little effect on top manager
commitment under the circumstance of controlled cultural values, although some of the studies findthat tenure positively affects strategy commitment; furthermore, culture significantly influences
mindsets of top managers, in turn leadership and strategy change (Geletkanycz, 1997). Under different
circumstances of four western cultures (e.g. Anglo, European Latin, Germanic, Nordic), top managers’
characteristics have different effects on innovation encompassing administrative and product/market
innovation (Huffman & Hegarty, 1993). In addition, there is also a national and cultural moderation
between top management team characteristics and organizational outcomes, for instance compared

XMFRemote̲(69014)208128̲大阪大学経済学 第67巻第2・3号(74602) (X4̲単頁) 24 折 2017/12/21 11:20:36

December 2017

Top management team characteristics and team processes－ 25 －

with American corporations, heterogeneities of top management team characteristics are not only
more significantly associated with team turnover in Japanese companies (Wiersema & Bird, 1993),
but also appear to exert more detrimental effects on firm performance in China (Wei et al., 2005).
Table 11 National environment
Findings

Literature

Different TMT composition in different nations

Glunk, Heijltjes & Olie, 2001
Palmer & Varner, 2007

Culture influences leadership and strategic change

Geletkanycz, 1997

Top managers’ characteristics have different effects on innovation in different
cultures

Huffman & Hegarty, 1993

Heterogenous TMTs have higher team turnover in Japanese firms

Wiersema & Bird, 1993

TMT heterogeneity has more detrimental effects on firm performance in China

Wei et al., 2005

5-2. Industrial environment
Different industrial environment (refer to Table 12) can not only have direct impacts on the top
management team composition (Eisenhardt & Schoonhoven, 1990) and team processes (Finkelstein& Hambrick, 1990; Hambrick, 1981) in companies, but also moderate the relationships among
top management team characteristics, team processes and corporate outcomes both in strategy andperformance (Hmieleski & Ensley, 2007; Keck, 1997; Murray, 1989; Srivastava & Lee, 2005).
In turbulent industries such as semiconductors and minicomputers, some experienced top managers
are more helpful than specialized technicians in a top management team to companies (Eisenhardt &Schoonhoven, 1990), and top management teams with short tenure and high heterogeneity are more
beneficial to strategic process and further to firm performance on the account of capabilities to solve
the complex problems from new insights and diverse perspectives, while top management teams withlonger tenure and higher homogeneity are more conducive to team cohesion and in turn corporate
performance in a stable industry, for example cement industry (Keck, 1997). Furthermore, it isverified that there are different effects of top management team tenure and heterogeneity on corporate
entrepreneurial actions, especially new product moves, long-tenured top management teams, speciallyspeaking, perform better on new product introduction in such industries as brewing and long distancetelecommunication; in contrast, short-tenured teams are more willing to engage in entrepreneurial
activities in personal computer industry; additionally, TMT tenure heterogeneity is significantly
and negatively associated with corporate entrepreneurship in brewing industry (Srivastava & Lee,2005). However, there is a opposite founding in the computer industry, top management teams havehigher level of discretion than those in both the natural gas and chemical industries, and team tenure
is more positively associated with strategic persistence and organizational outcomes (Finkelstein &Hambrick, 1990); additionally, strategic conformity has a more significant and positive influence on
corporate performance in an uncertain computer industry than in a stable foods industry (Geletkanycz& Hambrick, 1997).
In American stable industries, when a young corporation is managed by an empowering CEO,XMFRemote̲(69014)208128̲大阪大学経済学 第67巻第2・3号(74602) (X4̲単頁) 25 折 2017/12/21 11:20:36

－ 26 －OSAKA ECONOMIC PAPERS

Vol. 67 Nos. 2・3・4

the top management team heterogeneity (e.g. educational and functional background) positively
influences firm performance, whereas, the young company with a high-homogeneity top management
team performs better, when operated by a directive CEO; on the other hand, in American dynamic
industries, the greater heterogeneity the top management team with a directive CEO has, the betterthe young company performs, in contrast, the greater homogeneity the top management team with anempowering CEO has, the better the firm performance is (Hmieleski & Ensley, 2007). Furthermore, it
is confirmed that top management team characteristics are more significantly associated with corporate
performance in the oil industry than in the food industry (Murray, 1989). In addition, there is a big
difference from the United States, under the circumstance of Taiwan’s hypercompetitive industries, thehigher level of behavioral integration the top management team has, the more aggressive the corporate
action is, the better the firm performs (Chen, Lin & Michel, 2010).
Additionally, in different industries there is relatively different power structure within top
management teams. In an innovative industry (e.g. insurance), team members with particularfunctional background such as product and marketing development are more powerful than others
within the team; In a highly efficient industry such as hospital, team members with financial andoperational functions have most power in the top management team (Hambrick, 1981).
Table 12 Industrial environment
Findings

Literature

In a turbulent industry some experienced top managers are more helpful thanspecialized technicians

Eisenhardt & Schoonhoven, 1990

Different team power structure in different industries

Hambrick, 1981

TMT characteristics are more significantly associated with firm performancein the oil industry than in the food industry

Murray, 1989

TMTs have higher level of discretion in the computer industry than those inboth the natural gas and chemical industries

Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1990

In stable industries heterogenous TMTs with an empowering CEO perform
well in firms, in dynamic industries heterogenous TMTs with a directive
CEO perform well in firms

Hmieleski & Ensley, 2007

TMT tenure has opposing effects on corporate entrepreneurship in
different industry, TMT tenure heterogeneity negatively affects corporate
entrepreneurship in brewing industry

Srivastava & Lee, 2005

TMTs with long tenure and high homogeneity are more beneficial to firm
performance in a stable industry

Keck, 1997

5-3. Organizational environment
In an international and uncertain organizational environment (refer to Table 13), top management
team characteristics, specifically heterogeneities, are likely to have opposite effects on corporate
strategy and performance (Cannella, Park & Lee, 2008; Carpenter, 2002; Nielsen B B & Nielsen S,
2013).
Heterogeneous top management teams perform better in a complex environment than in a certain
environment, since it is necessary for companies to gather and deal with a great deal of information

XMFRemote̲(69014)208128̲大阪大学経済学 第67巻第2・3号(74602) (X4̲単頁) 26 折 2017/12/21 11:20:36

December 2017

Top management team characteristics and team processes－ 27 －

under these circumstances, and top management teams with diverse members can obtain more
information and abilities to solve such complicated problems, which is beneficial to select the mostappropriate strategy through evaluating a number of alternative strategies (Hambrick & Mason,
1984; Priem, 1990; Priem, Harrison & Muir, 1995) and further improve organizational performance(Cannella, Park & Lee, 2008; Nielsen B B & Nielsen S, 2013). For instance, TMT functional
heterogeneity facilitates firm performance in an uncertain environment (Cannella, Park & Lee, 2008),
and educational heterogeneity (Carpenter, 2002) and nationality heterogeneity are also found to havepositive impacts on corporate performance in the higher level of international environment (Nielsen B
B & Nielsen S, 2013). Besides, the more international experience the top management teams have, thebetter the companies perform in high internationalization (Nielsen B B & Nielsen S, 2013).
On the other hand, under the circumstances of internationalization, the complex organizational
environment tends to undermine the positive effects of top management team heterogeneities on
corporate outcome (Carpenter, 2002), since TMT heterogeneities are not only likely to trigger affective
conflict (Amason & Sapienza, 1997; Williams & O’Reilly, 1998), but also retard team integration(O’Reilly, Snyder & Boothe, 1993) and behavioral execution (Hambrick, Cho & Chen, 1996), in turnnegatively affect firm performance, for example in the high internationalization, both functional andtenure heterogeneities of top management teams are negatively associated with corporate performance(Carpenter, 2002).
Additionally, there are noteworthy relationships between some of the top management teamcharacteristics and organizational internationalization (Amason & Sapienza, 1997; Chen, 2011;
Herrmann & Datta, 2005; Reuber & Fischer, 1997; Sambharya, 1996; Segaro, 2012; Tihanyi etal., 2000). As companies become plunged into international business, top management teams needmore executives who have the ability of international operation in order to share and communicate
international experience and knowledge with each other (Amason & Sapienza, 1997), and thechief executive officers with international experience often perform better in highly multinational
corporations (Carpenter, Sanders & Gregersen, 2001). Consistent with this, the greater international
experience the top management teams have, the more likely the firms are to be engaged ininternational cooperation and strategies (Chen, 2011; Herrmann & Datta, 2005; Reuber & Fischer,1997; Sambharya, 1996; Segaro, 2012; Tihanyi et al., 2000), furthermore, TMT age, educational
background, tenure and heterogeneity are also significantly related to corporate internationalization(Chen, 2011; Herrmann & Datta, 2005; Sambharya, 1996; Tihanyi et al., 2000). Through research on
Chinese companies and emerging markets, the findings show that there is the positive relationshipbetween domestic diversification (e.g. industry and region) and corporate internationalization,international experience of top management team, besides, enhances the relationship, while TMT
political connections tend to undermine the positive relationship (Lu et al., 2014).

XMFRemote̲(69014)208128̲大阪大学経済学 第67巻第2・3号(74602) (X4̲単頁) 27 折 2017/12/21 11:20:36

－ 28 －OSAKA ECONOMIC PAPERS

Vol. 67 Nos. 2・3・4

Table 13 Organizational environment
Findings

Literature

In an uncertain environment, TMT functional heterogeneity facilitates firm
performance

Cannella, Park & Lee, 2008

In the high internationalization, TMT functional and tenure heterogeneities
negatively affect firm performance, yet educational heterogeneity has apositive influence

Carpenter, 2002

In the high internationalization, TMT nationality heterogeneity positively
influences firm performance, TMTs with more international experience
perform better

Nielsen B B & Nielsen S, 2013

CEOs with international experience perform better in highly multinational
corporations

Carpenter, Sanders & Gregersen,
2001

TMTs with more international experience are more likely to engage ininternational cooperation and strategies

Chen, 2011
Herrmann & Datta, 2005
Reuber & Fischer, 1997
Sambharya, 1996
Segaro, 2012
Tihanyi et al., 2000

TMT heterogeneities significantly affect corporate internationalization

Chen, 2011
Herrmann & Datta, 2005
Sambharya, 1996
Tihanyi et al., 2000

Corporate domestic diversification facilitates internationalization

Lu et al., 2014

6. Summary
This review paper summarizes and analyzes the upper echelons theory development, the impactsof top management team characteristics on strategic choices and organizational performance, teamprocesses and environmental influences. Based on the above comprehensive review of the previous
studies on top management teams, especially the review of empirical research, a circle model is built
to explain the possible relationships among these variables.

Figure 2 : A circle model of top management teams

XMFRemote̲(69014)208128̲大阪大学経済学 第67巻第2・3号(74602) (X4̲単頁) 28 折 2017/12/21 11:20:36

December 2017

Top management team characteristics and team processes－ 29 －As shown in the figure 2, a circle appears between the top management team characteristics
and team processes, more specially, the top management team demographics and heterogeneities
have impacts on team processes (Eisenhardt & Schoonhoven, 1990; Knight et al., 1999; Pelled,
1996; Simsek et al., 2005; Smith et al., 1994), and conversely team processes also affects the top
management team composition (Ensley, Pearson & Amason, 2002; Finkelstein, 1992).
On the one hand, the top management team characteristics exert direct effects on organizational
outcomes (Bantel & Jackson, 1989; Flood et al., 1997; Herrmann & Datta, 2005; Lee & Park, 2006;
Liu et al., 2012; Tihanyi et al., 2000; Wei et al., 2005; Wiersema & Bantel, 1992); on the other hand,
TMT demographics and heterogeneities are more likely to indirectly influence organizational strategy
and performance through affecting the team processes (Carmeli & Schaubroeck, 2006; Carmeli,
Schaubroeck & Tishler, 2011; Hambrick, 1997; Lubatkin et al., 2006; Ou et al., 2014; Raes, Bruch &De Jong, 2013; Simsek et al., 2005; Smith et al., 1994; Smith et al., 2006).
Moreover, there are some noteworthy relationships between these team process factors, andspecially, leadership has impacts on team cohesion and integration (Carmeli, Schaubroeck & Tishler,
2011; Ensley, Pearson & Pearce, 2003; Ou et al., 2014; Peterson et al., 2003; Zaccaro & Klimoski,2002); team cohesion can also exert effects on conflicts within the team (Ensley, Pearson & Amason,
2002); conflict among TMT members affects integration and communication within the team
(Hambrick et al., 2001; Li & Hambrick, 2005; Smith et al., 1994); team integration affects conflicts(Camelo-Ordaz, García-Cruz & Sousa-Ginel, 2014; Hambrick et al., 2001); communication among
team members has an influence on team integration (Smith et al., 1994).
In addition, external environments such as nation, industry and organization can not only directly
affect top management team composition (Eisenhardt & Schoonhoven, 1990; Glunk, Heijltjes & Olie,
2001; Palmer & Varner, 2007) and team processes (Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1990; Geletkanycz, 1997;
Hambrick, 1981), but also as a moderator, exert impacts on the relationships among top management
team characteristics, team processes and organizational outcomes (Carpenter, 2002; Hmieleski &Ensley, 2007; Huffman & Hegarty, 1993; Keck, 1997; Nielsen B B & Nielsen S, 2013; Srivastava &Lee, 2005; Wei et al., 2005; Wiersema & Bird, 1993).
7. Future research direction
First, there is a shift in the emphasis of the research on top management teams from TMT
demographics (e.g. age, education) to TMT heterogeneities (e.g. functional heterogeneity) and teamprocesses (e.g. team integration) in order to open the “black box” existing in the original upperechelons theory, and thus it is needed to introduce such characteristics or variables as faultlines(Hutzschenreuter & Horstkotte, 2013b; Van Knippenberg et al., 2011), female top managers (Dezsö& Ross, 2012), middle managers (Ou et al., 2014; Raes et al., 2011) into the upper echelons theory tobetter explain how top management teams affect organizational outcomes.
Second, many of the studies on top management teams focus on the western countries with mature
market economies, and hence in future research, if scholars interested in upper echelons pay more
attention to Asian nations, especially in emerging market economies, there may be some different

XMFRemote̲(69014)208128̲大阪大学経済学 第67巻第2・3号(74602) (X4̲単頁) 29 折 2017/12/21 11:20:36

－ 30 －OSAKA ECONOMIC PAPERS

Vol. 67 Nos. 2・3・4

research results and original research findings.
Third, a case or field study will be considered in future research on top management teams, since it
has more practical and operational values to managers, and there is a paucity of literature on it in thefield of upper echelons (Pitcher & Smith, 2001).
Finally, most of the upper echelons research is mostly concentrated in corporate strategic
development and performance improvement, and the study on corporate social responsibility is scarce.
However, it makes sense to clarify the relationship between top management teams and corporate
philanthropy, especially in China, because unlike western countries, most of the charitable give
originates in companies rather than individual donors.
Acknowledgements
Support for this study was provided by the China Scholarship Council.
References
Abatecola, G., Mandarelli, G., & Poggesi, S. (2013). The personality factor: how top management
teams make decisions. A literature review. Journal of Management & Governance, 17(4), 10731100.
Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic
decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of management
journal, 39(1), 123-148.
Amason, A. C., & Mooney, A. C. (1999). The effects of past performance on top management teamconflict in strategic decision making. International Journal of Conflict Management, 10(4), 340359.
Amason, A. C., & Sapienza, H. J. (1997). The effects of top management team size and interaction
norms on cognitive and affective conflict. Journal of management, 23(4), 495-516.
Amason, A. C., & Schweiger, D. M. (1994). Resolving the paradox of conflict, strategic decision
making, and organizational performance. International Journal of Conflict Management, 5(3),239-253.
Amason, A. C., Shrader, R. C., & Tompson, G. H. (2006). Newness and novelty: Relating
top management team composition to new venture performance. Journal of Business
Venturing, 21(1), 125-148.
Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Demography and design: Predictors of new product teamperformance. Organization science, 3(3), 321-341.
Athanassiou, N., & Nigh, D. (1999). The impact of US company internationalization on top
management team advice networks: A tacit knowledge perspective. Strategic management
journal, 20(1), 83-92.
Auden, W. C., Shackman, J. D., & Onken, M. H. (2006). Top management team, international risk
management factor and firm performance. Team Performance Management: An International
Journal, 12(7/8), 209-224.

XMFRemote̲(69014)208128̲大阪大学経済学 第67巻第2・3号(74602) (X4̲単頁) 30 折 2017/12/21 11:20:36

December 2017

Top management team characteristics and team processes－ 31 －

Bantel, K. A. (1993a). Strategic clarity in banking: Role of top management-team demography. Psychological
Reports, 73(3_suppl), 1187-1201.
Bantel, K. A. (1993b). Top team, environment, and performance effects on strategic planningformality. Group & Organization Management, 18(4), 436-458.
Bantel, K. A., & Jackson, S. E. (1989). Top management and innovations in banking: Does thecomposition of the top team make a difference?. Strategic management journal, 10(S1), 107-124.
Barker III, V. L., & Mueller, G. C. (2002). CEO characteristics and firm R&D spending. Management
Science, 48(6), 782-801.
Bettenhausen, K., & Murnighan, J. K. (1985). The emergence of norms in competitive decisionmaking groups. Administrative science quarterly, 30(3), 350-372.
Boeker, W. (1997). Strategic change: The influence of managerial characteristics and organizational
growth. Academy of management journal, 40(1), 152-170.
Boerner, S., Linkohr, M., & Kiefer, S. (2011). Top management team diversity: positive in the
short run, but negative in the long run?. Team Performance Management: An International
Journal, 17(7/8), 328-353.
Bollen, K. A., & Hoyle, R. H. (1990). Perceived cohesion: A conceptual and empiricalexamination. Social forces, 69(2), 479-504.
Bunderson, J. S., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2002). Comparing alternative conceptualizations of functional
diversity in management teams: Process and performance effects. Academy of management
journal, 45(5), 875-893.
Cai, L., Liu, Q., & Yu, X. (2013). Effects of top management team heterogeneous background andbehavioural attributes on the performance of new ventures. Systems Research and Behavioral
Science, 30(3), 354-366.
Camelo-Ordaz, C., García-Cruz, J., & Sousa-Ginel, E. (2014). Antecedents of relationship conflict in
top management teams. International Journal of Conflict Management, 25(2), 124-147.
Camelo-Ordaz, C., Hernández-Lara, A. B., & Valle-Cabrera, R. (2005). The relationship between
top management teams and innovative capacity in companies. Journal of Management
Development, 24(8), 683-705.
Cannella, A. A., Park, J. H., & Lee, H. U. (2008). Top management team functional backgrounddiversity and firm performance: Examining the roles of team member colocation andenvironmental uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 51(4), 768-784.
Carmeli, A., & Schaubroeck, J. (2006). Top management team behavioral integration, decision quality,
and organizational decline. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(5), 441-453.
Carmeli, A., Schaubroeck, J., & Tishler, A. (2011). How CEO empowering leadership shapes
top management team processes: Implications for firm performance. The Leadership
Quarterly, 22(2), 399-411.
Carpenter, M. A. (2002). The implications of strategy and social context for the relationshipbetween top management team heterogeneity and firm performance. Strategic Management
Journal, 23(3), 275-284.

XMFRemote̲(69014)208128̲大阪大学経済学 第67巻第2・3号(74602) (X4̲単頁) 31 折 2017/12/21 11:20:36

－ 32 －OSAKA ECONOMIC PAPERS

Vol. 67 Nos. 2・3・4

Carpenter, M. A., & Fredrickson, J. W. (2001). Top management teams, global strategic posture, andthe moderating role of uncertainty. Academy of Management journal, 44(3), 533-545.
Carpenter, M. A., Geletkanycz, M. A., & Sanders, W. G. (2004). Upper echelons research revisited:
Antecedents, elements, and consequences of top management team composition. Journal ofmanagement, 30(6), 749-778.
Carpenter, M. A., Sanders, W. G., & Gregersen, H. B. (2001). Bundling human capital withorganizational context: The impact of international assignment experience on multinational firm
performance and CEO pay. Academy of management journal, 44(3), 493-511.
Chatman, J. A., & Flynn, F. J. (2001). The influence of demographic heterogeneity on the emergenceand consequences of cooperative norms in work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5),956-974.
Chen, H. L. (2011). Does board independence influence the top management team? Evidence fromstrategic decisions toward internationalization. Corporate Governance: An International
Review, 19(4), 334-350.
Chen, M. J., Lin, H. C., & Michel, J. G. (2010). Navigating in a hypercompetitive environment: theroles of action aggressiveness and TMT integration. Strategic Management Journal, 31(13),1410-1430.
Child, J. (1974). Managerial and organizational factors associated with company performance partI. Journal of Management studies, 11(3), 175-189.
Choi, K., & Cho, B. (2011). Competing hypotheses analyses of the associations between group task
conflict and group relationship conflict. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(8), 1106-1126.
Daboub, A. J., Rasheed, A. M., Priem, R. L., & Gray, D. (1995). Top management team characteristics
and corporate illegal activity. Academy of Management review, 20(1), 138-170.
Daellenbach, U. S., McCarthy, A. M., & Schoenecker, T. S. (1999). Commitment to innovation: The
impact of top management team characteristics. R&D Management, 29(3), 199-208.
De Hoogh, A. H., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2008). Ethical and despotic leadership, relationships withleader’s social responsibility, top management team effectiveness and subordinates’ optimism: A
multi-method study. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(3), 297-311.
Dezsö, C. L., & Ross, D. G. (2012). Does female representation in top management improve firm
performance? A panel data investigation. Strategic Management Journal, 33(9), 1072-1089.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Schoonhoven, C. B. (1990). Organizational growth: Linking founding team,strategy, environment, and growth among US semiconductor ventures, 1978-1988. Administrative
science quarterly, 35(3), 504-529.
Ensley, M. D., & Pearce, C. L. (2001). Shared cognition in top management teams: Implications for
new venture performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(2), 145-160.
Ensley, M. D., & Pearson, A. W. (2005). An exploratory comparison of the behavioral dynamics of
top management teams in family and nonfamily new ventures: Cohesion, conflict, potency, andconsensus. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(3), 267-284.
Ensley, M. D., Pearson, A. W., & Amason, A. C. (2002). Understanding the dynamics of new venture

XMFRemote̲(69014)208128̲大阪大学経済学 第67巻第2・3号(74602) (X4̲単頁) 32 折 2017/12/21 11:20:36

December 2017

Top management team characteristics and team processes－ 33 －

top management teams: cohesion, conflict, and new venture performance. Journal of businessventuring, 17(4), 365-386.
Ensley, M. D., Pearson, A. W., & Pearce, C. L. (2003). Top management team process, sharedleadership, and new venture performance: A theoretical model and research agenda. Human
Resource Management Review, 13(2), 329-346.
Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological review, 57(5), 271-282.
Finkelstein, S. (1992). Power in top management teams: Dimensions, measurement, andvalidation. Academy of Management journal, 35(3), 505-538.
Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. C. (1990). Top-management-team tenure and organizational
outcomes: The moderating role of managerial discretion. Administrative science quarterly, 35(3),484-503.
Flood, P. C., Fong, C. M., Smith, K. G., O’Regan, P., Moore, S., & Morley, M. (1997). Top
management teams and pioneering: a resource-based view. International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 8(3), 291-306.
Flood, P. C., Hannan, E., Smith, K. G., Turner, T., West, M. A., & Dawson, J. (2000). Chief executive
leadership style, consensus decision making, and top management team effectiveness. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 9(3), 401-420.
Gannon, M. J., Smith, K. G., & Grimm, C. (1992). An organizational information-processing profile
of first movers. Journal of Business Research, 25(3), 231-241.
Geletkanycz, M. A. (1997). The salience of ’culture’s consequences’: The effects of cultural values on
top executive commitment to the status quo. Strategic Management Journal, 18(8), 615-634.
Geletkanycz, M. A., & Black, S. S. (2001). Bound by the past? Experience-based effects oncommitment to the strategic status quo. Journal of Management, 27(1), 3-21.
Geletkanycz, M. A., & Hambrick, D. C. (1997). The external ties of top executives: Implications forstrategic choice and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(4), 654-681.
Glunk, U., Heijltjes, M. G., & Olie, R. (2001). Design characteristics and functioning of top
management teams in Europe. European Management Journal, 19(3), 291-300.
Govindarajan, V. (1989). Implementing competitive strategies at the business unit level: Implicationsof matching managers to strategies. Strategic Management Journal, 10(3), 251-269.
Greening, D. W., & Johnson, R. A. (1996). Do managers and strategies matter? A study incrisis. Journal of Management Studies, 33(1), 25-51.
Grimm, C. M., & Smith, K. G. (1991). Research notes and communications management andorganizational change: A note on the railroad industry. Strategic Management Journal, 12(7),557-562.
Haleblian, J., & Finkelstein, S. (1993). Top management team size, CEO dominance, and firm
performance: The moderating roles of environmental turbulence and discretion. Academy ofmanagement journal, 36(4), 844-863.
Hambrick, D. C. (1981). Environment, strategy, and power within top management
teams. Administrative science quarterly, 26(2), 253-275.

XMFRemote̲(69014)208128̲大阪大学経済学 第67巻第2・3号(74602) (X4̲単頁) 33 折 2017/12/21 11:20:36

－ 34 －OSAKA ECONOMIC PAPERS

Vol. 67 Nos. 2・3・4

Hambrick, D. C. (1994). Top management groups: A conceptual integration and reconsideration of theteam label. Research in organizational behavior, 16(6), 171-214.
Hambrick, D. C. (1997). Corporate coherence and the top management team. Strategy &Leadership, 25(5), 24-29.
Hambrick, D. C. (2007). Upper echelons theory: An update. Academy of management review, 32(2),334-343.
Hambrick, D. C., & D’Aveni, R. A. (1992). Top team deterioration as part of the downward spiral oflarge corporate bankruptcies. Management Science, 38(10), 1445-1466.
Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top
managers. Academy of management review, 9(2), 193-206.
Hambrick, D. C., Cho, T. S., & Chen, M. J. (1996). The influence of top management teamheterogeneity on firms’ competitive moves. Administrative science quarterly, 41(4), 659-684.
Hambrick, D. C., Li, J., Xin, K., & Tsui, A. S. (2001). Compositional gaps and downward spirals ininternational joint venture management groups. Strategic Management Journal, 22(11), 10331053.
Hart, P., & Mellors, J. (1970). Management youth and company growth: a correlation?. Management
Decision, 4(1), 50-53.
Heavey, C., & Simsek, Z. (2013). Top management compositional effects on corporate
entrepreneurship: The moderating role of perceived technological uncertainty. Journal of ProductInnovation Management, 30(5), 837-855.
Herrmann, P., & Datta, D. K. (2005). Relationships between top management team characteristics andinternational diversification: An empirical investigation. British Journal of Management, 16(1),69-78.
Hitt, M. A., & Barr, S. H. (1989). Managerial selection decision models: Examination of configuralcue processing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(1), 53-61.
Hitt, M. A., & Tyler, B. B. (1991). Strategic decision models: Integrating different
perspectives. Strategic management journal, 12(5), 327-351.
Hmieleski, K. M., & Ensley, M. D. (2007). A contextual examination of new venture performance:
entrepreneur leadership behavior, top management team heterogeneity, and environmental
dynamism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(7), 865-889.
Hogg, M. A. (1992). The social psychology of group cohesiveness: From attraction to social identity.
Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Huffman, R. C., & Hegarty, W. H. (1993). Top management influence on innovations: Effects ofexecutive characteristics and social culture. Journal of management, 19(3), 549-574.
Hutzschenreuter, T., & Horstkotte, J. (2013a). Performance effects of international expansion
processes: The moderating role of top management team experiences. International Business
Review, 22(1), 259-277.
Hutzschenreuter, T., & Horstkotte, J. (2013b). Performance effects of top management teamdemographic faultlines in the process of product diversification. Strategic Management

XMFRemote̲(69014)208128̲大阪大学経済学 第67巻第2・3号(74602) (X4̲単頁) 34 折 2017/12/21 11:20:36

December 2017

Top management team characteristics and team processes－ 35 －

Journal, 34(6), 704-726.
Iaquinto, A. L., & Fredrickson, J. W. (1997). Top management team agreement about the strategic
decision process: A test of some of its determinants and consequences. Strategic Management
Journal, 18(1), 63-75.
Jackson, S. E. (1992). Consequences of group composition for the interpersonal dynamics of strategic
issue processing. Advances in strategic management, 8(3), 345-382.
Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: a psychological study of foreign-policy decisions andfiascoes.
Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes.
Jehn, K. A. (1994). Enhancing effectiveness: An investigation of advantages and disadvantages ofvalue-based intragroup conflict. International journal of conflict management, 5(3), 223-238.
Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroupconflict. Administrative science quarterly, 40(2), 256-282.
Jehn, K. A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizationalgroups. Administrative science quarterly, 42(3), 530-557.
K a t z , R . ( 1 9 8 2 ) . T h e e ff e c t s o f g r o u p l o n g e v i t y o n p r o j e c t c o m m u n i c a t i o n a n d
performance. Administrative science quarterly, 27(1), 81-104.
Katzenbach, J. R. (1996). The myth of the top management team. Harvard Business Review, 75(6),82-91.
Keck, S. L. (1997). Top management team structure: Differential effects by environmental
context. Organization science, 8(2), 143-156.
Kimberly, J. R., & Evanisko, M. J. (1981). Organizational innovation: The influence of individual,organizational, and contextual factors on hospital adoption of technological and administrative
innovations. Academy of management journal, 24(4), 689-713.
Knight, D., Pearce, C. L., Smith, K. G., Olian, J. D., Sims, H. P., Smith, K. A., & Flood, P. (1999).
Top management team diversity, group process, and strategic consensus. Strategic Management
Journal, 20(5), 445-465.
Kor, Y. Y. (2003). Experience-based top management team competence and sustained
growth. Organization Science, 14(6), 707-719.
Lant, T. K., Milliken, F. J., & Batra, B. (1992). The role of managerial learning and interpretationin strategic persistence and reorientation: An empirical exploration. Strategic Management
Journal, 13(8), 585-608.
Lee, H. U., & Park, J. H. (2006). Top team diversity, internationalization and the mediating effect ofinternational alliances. British Journal of Management, 17(3), 195-213.
Li, J., & Hambrick, D. C. (2005). Factional groups: A new vantage on demographic faultlines, conflict,and disintegration in work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 794-813.
Liu, K., Li, J., Hesterly, W., & Cannella, A. (2012). Top management team tenure and technologicalinventions at post-IPO biotechnology firms. Journal of Business Research, 65(9), 1349-1356.
Lu, J., Liu, X., Filatotchev, I., & Wright, M. (2014). The impact of domestic diversification and top

XMFRemote̲(69014)208128̲大阪大学経済学 第67巻第2・3号(74602) (X4̲単頁) 35 折 2017/12/21 11:20:36

－ 36 －OSAKA ECONOMIC PAPERS

Vol. 67 Nos. 2・3・4

management teams on the international diversification of Chinese firms. International Business
Review, 23(2), 455-467.
Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., & Veiga, J. F. (2006). Ambidexterity and performance in smallto medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. Journalof management, 32(5), 646-672.
Lyon, D. W., & Ferrier, W. J. (2002). Enhancing performance with product-market innovation: theinfluence of the top management team. Journal of Managerial Issues, 14(4), 452-469.
Mayr, R. (2011). Top management team age structure and firm performance. Doctoral dissertation,
University of St. Gallen.
Michalisin, M. D., Karau, S. J., & Tangpong, C. (2004). Top management team cohesion andsuperior industry returns: An empirical study of the resource-based view. Group & Organization
Management, 29(1), 125-140.
Michel, J. G., & Hambrick, D. C. (1992). Diversification posture and top management teamcharacteristics. Academy of Management journal, 35(1), 9-37.
Milliken, F. J., & Martins, L. L. (1996). Searching for common threads: Understanding the multiple
effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of management review, 21(2), 402-433.
Mooney, A. C., Holahan, P. J., & Amason, A. C. (2007). Don’t take it personally: Exploring cognitive
conflict as a mediator of affective conflict. Journal of management studies, 44(5), 733-758.
Murray, A. I. (1989). Top management group heterogeneity and firm performance. Strategic
management journal, 10(S1), 125-141.
Nielsen, B. B., & Nielsen, S. (2011). The role of top management team international orientation ininternational strategic decision-making: The choice of foreign entry mode. Journal of World
Business, 46(2), 185-193.
Nielsen, B. B., & Nielsen, S. (2013). Top management team nationality diversity and firm
performance: A multilevel study. Strategic Management Journal, 34(3), 373-382.
N i e l s e n , S . ( 2 0 1 0 ) . To p m a n a g e m e n t t e a m d i v e r s i t y : A r e v i e w o f t h e o r i e s a n dmethodologies. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(3), 301-316.
O’Reilly III, C. A., Caldwell, D. F., & Barnett, W. P. (1989). Work group demography, social
integration, and turnover. Administrative science quarterly, 34(1), 21-37.
O’Reilly III, C. A., Snyder, R. C., & Boothe, J. N. (1993). Effects of executive team demography onorganizational change. Organizational change and redesign, 147-175.
Ou, A. Y., Tsui, A. S., Kinicki, A. J., Waldman, D. A., Xiao, Z., & Song, L. J. (2014). Humble chief
executive officers’ connections to top management team integration and middle managers’
responses. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59(1), 34-72.
Palmer, T. M., & Varner, I. I. (2007). A comparison of the international diversity on top management
teams of multinational firms based in the United States, Europe, and Asia: Status andimplications. Singapore Management Review, 29(1), 1-30.
Parayitam, S., Olson, B. J., & Bao, Y. (2010). Task conflict, relationship conflict and agreementseeking behavior in Chinese top management teams. International Journal of conflict

XMFRemote̲(69014)208128̲大阪大学経済学 第67巻第2・3号(74602) (X4̲単頁) 36 折 2017/12/21 11:20:36

December 2017

Top management team characteristics and team processes－ 37 －

management, 21(1), 94-116.
Pegels, C. C., & Yang, B. (2000). Top management team impact on strategic assets accumulation
capabilities. Management Decision, 38(10), 694-710.
Pelled, L. H. (1996). Demographic diversity, conflict, and work group outcomes: An intervening
process theory. Organization science, 7(6), 615-631.
Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis of workgroup diversity, conflict and performance. Administrative science quarterly, 44(1), 1-28.
Peterson, R. S., & Behfar, K. J. (2003). The dynamic relationship between performance feedback,trust, and conflict in groups: A longitudinal study. Organizational behavior and human decision
processes, 92(1), 102-112.
Peterson, R. S., Smith, D. B., Martorana, P. V., & Owens, P. D. (2003). The impact of chief executive
officer personality on top management team dynamics: one mechanism by which leadershipaffects organizational performance. Journal of applied Psychology, 88(5), 795-808.
Pitcher, P., & Smith, A. D. (2001). Top management team heterogeneity: Personality, power, andproxies. Organization Science, 12(1), 1-18.
Porter, T. W., & Lilly, B. S. (1996). The effects of conflict, trust, and task commitment on project teamperformance. International Journal of Conflict Management, 7(4), 361-376.
Priem, R. L. (1990). Top management team group factors, consensus, and firm performance. Strategic
Management Journal, 11(6), 469-478.
Priem, R. L., Harrison, D. A., & Muir, N. K. (1995). Structured conflict and consensus outcomes ingroup decision making. Journal of management, 21(4), 691-710.
Priem, R. L., Lyon, D. W., & Dess, G. G. (1999). Inherent limitations of demographic proxies in top
management team heterogeneity research. Journal of Management, 25(6), 935-953.
Qian, C., Cao, Q., & Takeuchi, R. (2013). Top management team functional diversity andorganizational innovation in China: The moderating effects of environment. Strategic
Management Journal, 34(1), 110-120.
Raes, A. M., Bruch, H., & De Jong, S. B. (2013). How top management team behavioural integration
can impact employee work outcomes: Theory development and first empirical tests. Human
Relations, 66(2), 167-192.
Raes, A. M., Heijltjes, M. G., Glunk, U., & Roe, R. A. (2011). The interface of the top management
team and middle managers: A process model. Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 102-126.
Reuber, A. R., & Fischer, E. (1997). The influence of the management team’s international experienceon the internationalization behaviors of SMEs. Journal of International Business Studies, 28(4),807-825.
Richard, O. C., & Shelor, R. M. (2002). Linking top management team age heterogeneity to firm
performance: Juxtaposing two mid-range theories. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 13(6), 958-974.
Sambharya, R. B. (1996). Foreign experience of top management teams and international
diversification strategies of US multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 17(9),XMFRemote̲(69014)208128̲大阪大学経済学 第67巻第2・3号(74602) (X4̲単頁) 37 折 2017/12/21 11:20:36

－ 38 －OSAKA ECONOMIC PAPERS

Vol. 67 Nos. 2・3・4

739-746.
Schweiger, D. M., Sandberg, W. R., & Ragan, J. W. (1986). Group approaches for improving
strategic decision making: A comparative analysis of dialectical inquiry, devil’s advocacy, andconsensus. Academy of management Journal, 29(1), 51-71.
Schwenk, C. R. (1990). Conflict in organizational decision making: An exploratory study of its effects
in for-profit and not-for-profit organizations. Management Science, 36(4), 436-448.
Segaro, E. (2012). Internationalization of family SMEs: the impact of ownership, governance, and top
management team. Journal of Management & Governance, 16(1), 147-169.
Shipilov, A., & Danis, W. (2006). TMG social capital, strategic choice and firm performance. European
Management Journal, 24(1), 16-27.
Simons, T. L., & Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management
teams: the pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of applied psychology, 85(1), 102-111.
Simons, T. L., Pelled, L. H., & Smith, K. A. (1999). Making use of difference: Diversity, debate, anddecision comprehensiveness in top management teams. Academy of management journal, 42(6),662-673.
Simsek, Z., Veiga, J. F., Lubatkin, M. H., & Dino, R. N. (2005). Modeling the multilevel determinantsof top management team behavioral integration. Academy of Management Journal, 48(1), 69-84.
Smith, A., Houghton, S. M., Hood, J. N., & Ryman, J. A. (2006). Power relationships among
top managers: Does top management team power distribution matter for organizational
performance?. Journal of Business Research, 59(5), 622-629.
Smith, K. G., Smith, K. A., Olian, J. D., Sims Jr, H. P., O’Bannon, D. P., & Scully, J. A. (1994).
Top management team demography and process: The role of social integration andcommunication. Administrative science quarterly, 39(3), 412-438.
Srivastava, A., & Lee, H. (2005). Predicting order and timing of new product moves: the role of top
management in corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(4), 459-481.
Sutcliffe, K. M. (1994). What executives notice: Accurate perceptions in top management
teams. Academy of Management journal, 37(5), 1360-1378.
Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual review of psychology, 33(1), 1-39.
Taylor, R. N. (1975). Age and experience as determinants of managerial information processing anddecision making performance. Academy of Management Journal, 18(1), 74-81.
Taylor, R. N., & Dunnette, M. D. (1974). Relative contribution of decision-maker attributes todecision processes. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 12(2), 286-298.
Tihanyi, L., Ellstrand, A. E., Daily, C. M., & Dalton, D. R. (2000). Composition of the top
management team and firm international diversification. Journal of Management, 26(6), 11571177.
Tjosvold, D., & Deemer, D. K. (1980). Effects of controversy within a cooperative or competitive
context on organizational decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(5), 590-595.
Van Knippenberg, D., Dawson, J. F., West, M. A., & Homan, A. C. (2011). Diversity faultlines, sharedobjectives, and top management team performance. human relations, 64(3), 307-336.

XMFRemote̲(69014)208128̲大阪大学経済学 第67巻第2・3号(74602) (X4̲単頁) 38 折 2017/12/21 11:20:36

December 2017

Top management team characteristics and team processes－ 39 －

Van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and groupperformance: an integrative model and research agenda. Journal of applied psychology, 89(6),1008-1022.
Vroom, V. H., & Pahl, B. (1971). Relationship between age and risk taking among managers. Journalof Applied Psychology, 55(5), 399-405.
Wei, L.Q., & Lau, C. M. (2012). Effective teamwork at the top: the evidence from China. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(9), 1853-1870.
Wei, L.Q., Lau, C. M., Young, M. N., & Wang, Z. (2005). The impact of top management teamdemography on firm performance in China. Asian Business & Management, 4(3), 227-250.
Weinzimmer, L. G. (1997). Top management team correlates of organizational growth in a small
business context: a comparative study.Journal of Small Business Management, 35(3), 1-9.
Wiersema, M. F., & Bantel, K. A. (1992). Top management team demography and corporate strategicchange. Academy of Management journal, 35(1), 91-121.
Wiersema, M. F., & Bird, A. (1993). Organizational demography in Japanese firms: Group
heterogeneity, individual dissimilarity, and top management team turnover. Academy ofManagement Journal, 36(5), 996-1025.
Williams, K. Y., & O’Reilly III, C. A. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of
40 years of research. Research in organizational behavior, 20, 77-140.
Yang, J., & Mossholder, K. W. (2004). Decoupling task and relationship conflict: The role ofintragroup emotional processing. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(5), 589-605.
Zaccaro, S. J., & Klimoski, R. (2002). The interface of leadership and team processes. Group &Organization Management, 27(1), 4-13.

XMFRemote̲(69014)208128̲大阪大学経済学 第67巻第2・3号(74602) (X4̲単頁) 39 折 2017/12/21 11:20:37

（40）Vol. 67 Nos. 2・3・4

大

阪

大

学

経

済

学

December 2017

フェア・ディスクロージャー・ルールとアナリスト行動＊
石

徹†

川
要

旨

本稿の目的は，フェア・ディスクロージャー・ルール（FD ルール）の導入の影響を数理モデル
を用いて分析することである。本稿では，FD ルールの対象となるアナリストに焦点をあてた。そして，アナリストの特徴に着目して，FD ルールがアナリストの行動に与える影響を分析した。その結果，アナリストの経験によって，FD ルールがアナリストに与える影響が異なるという理論的予測を得た。FD ルールを効率的に機能させるためには，その影響を把握することが重要である。
したがって本稿は，その影響を把握するための検証可能な理論的予測を与えた点で貢献がある。
JEL Classification：M 41
キーワード：フェア・ディスクロージャー・ルール，情報獲得，キャリアコンサーン

1

はじめに

の信頼を損なうとして，Securities and Exchange
Commission（SEC）によって導入された。そし2017 年 5 月，金融商品取引法の一部を改正て，日本においても選択的開示が問題視されたする法律が国会で成立・公布された。この法律ため導入されることとなった1。本稿では，数理には，企業による公平な情報開示を定めたフェモデルを用いて，このルールが導入されたとき

ア・ディスクロージャー・ルール（以下，FD

の理論的予測を与える。

ルール）がある。この FD ルールは，企業に対まずはじめに，米国における Reg FD の導入

して，公表前の重要な情報を特定の対象（主にの影響をみる。Reg FD は資本市場の公平な競アナリスト，機関投資家）のみに開示する，い争の場を確保する目的で，1999 年 12 月に SEC

わゆる選択的開示を禁止している。米国においによって規則案が公表され，2000 年 8 月に最ても，同様のルールであるレギュレーション・

終規則が採択，同年 10 月に施行された2。この

フェア・ディスクロージャー（以下，Reg FD）

Reg FD に関しては，多数の個人投資家からのが既に導入されている。この Reg FD は，選択賛成意見があった一方で，Reg FD の対象とな的開示が，資本市場の健全性に対する投資家
1＊

本稿の作成にあたり，山本達司教授（大阪大学大学
院経済学研究科），および椎葉淳教授（大阪大学大学
院経済学研究科），大洲裕司特任講師（大阪市立大学
経営学研究科）より多くの貴重なコメントをいただ
いた。ここに記して深く感謝申し上げたい。なお本稿における全ての誤りは筆者に帰するものである。
†
大阪大学大学院経済学研究科博士後期課程
E-mail: u 757296 g@ecs.osaka-u.ac.jp.

2

近年，証券市場のアナリストが選択的開示によって入手した情報を用いて，顧客に証券の売買を推奨する 事 案 が 明 ら か に な っ た。 例 え ば，2015 年 12 月，
ドイツ証券株式会社に対して，金融庁から行政処分として業務改善命令が下されている。
FD ルールにおいても，金融審議会（2016）は導入の意義として，「個人投資家や海外投資家を含めた投資家に対する公平かつ適時な情報開示を確保し，全ての投資家が安心して取引できるようにするため，本
ルールを導入すべきである。」と述べている。

XMFRemote̲(69014)208128̲大阪大学経済学 第67巻第2・3号(74603) (X4̲単頁) 1 折 2017/12/21 11:20:49

December 2017

フェア・ディスクロージャー・ルールとアナリスト行動

る機関投資家，アナリストからは反対意見が－ 41 －

確な予想をしたときに，将来の報酬に与える影寄せられた（SEC，2000）。反対意見では，施響が大きいというキャリアコンサーンがある。

行前からすでに，企業とのミーティングの減

本稿においては，アナリストの特徴として，ア

少，企業から得られる情報の減少が起きている

ナリストのキャリアコンサーンに着目する。

ことが述べられている（Hasset, 2000；Opdyke,

実証研究と比較して，Reg FD に関する分析

2000）。Reg FD 前にアナリストに開示されて的研究は数少ない。Arya et al.（2005）は，萎いた情報が，Reg FD 後に公的に開示されるこ縮効果が起こるメカニズムをアナリストによるとなく非開示となることは萎縮効果（Chilling

ハーディング行動の観点から理論的に分析しeffect）といわれる（Opdyke, 2000）。そして現た。しかし，Arya et al.（2005）においては Reg

在まで，Reg FD の広範な影響に関する研究がFD 前後のアナリストの情報獲得行動の変化が蓄積されてきた3。

考慮されていない。そのため，Reg FD がアナ

この中に，アナリストへの影響を分析した研究がある。その理由は，アナリストは Reg FD

リストの行動に与える影響を十分に説明できたとはいえない。

の対象であって，直接影響を受けるためであしたがって，本稿はアナリストによる情報獲る。FD ルールにおいても，導入の積極的な意

得行動を考慮する。そして，アナリストのキャ

義の 1 つに，「アナリストによる，より客観的

リアコンサーンに着目して，FD ルールの導入

で正確な分析及び推奨が行われるための環境をがアナリストの行動に与える影響を分析する。

整備すること」（金融審議会，2016）がある。

ここでは，証券会社のアナリストが，顧客であ

そのため，アナリスト予想の正確性，予想のばる機関投資家に対して業績予想のレポートを報

らつきなどを用いて Reg FD の影響がみられて告する状況を考える。本稿の分析から，次のきた（Heflin et al.，2003；Irani and Karamanou，

結果が得られた。FD ルール後に企業が開示方

2003；Agrawal et al.，2006；Francis et al. 2006）。

針を非開示に変更したとき，経験の浅いアナリ

しかし，その影響に関して未だ統一的な見解は

ストは情報を獲得しなくなる。一方，熟練した得られていない。そこで本稿は，アナリストのアナリストは，新たに情報を獲得するようにな

特徴に焦点を当て，FD ルールが導入されたとる。このことは，アナリストの経験によって FD

きのアナリストの行動に与える影響の理論的予

ルールの影響が異なることを意味する。加えて測を与える。

本稿では，FD ルールが情報環境に与える影響

アナリスト予想の正確性とアナリストの特をみた。その結果，企業が開示方針を選択的開徴との関係を検証したものとして，Hong et al.

示から非開示に変更したとき，情報環境は変わ（2000）がある。Hong et al.（2000）は，アナリらないまたは悪化し，企業が開示方針を選択的

スト予想の正確性とアナリストの昇進，解雇と開示から公的開示に変更したときは，情報環境の関係に着目し，特に経験の浅いアナリストには変わらないまたは改善することが判明した。

おいてこの関係が強いことが示している。さら本稿のモデルから，アナリストの経験によっに，経験の浅いアナリストほど大胆な予想をして FD ルールが導入されたときのアナリストのないことを明らかにしている。この背景には，行動に与える影響が異なるという理論的予測がアナリストの経験が浅いアナリストほど，不正導かれた。FD ルールを効率的に機能させるた

3

Koch et al.（2013）は，Reg FD に関する文献を，Reg
FD が目的を達成しているか，萎縮効果が起きているかという観点からまとめている。

めには，その影響を把握することが重要である。本稿は，その影響を把握するための検証可
能な理論的予測を与えた点で貢献がある。

XMFRemote̲(69014)208128̲大阪大学経済学 第67巻第2・3号(74603) (X4̲単頁) 2 折 2017/12/21 11:20:49

大－ 42 －

阪

大

学

経

済

学

本稿は，次のように構成される。第 2 節はベVol. 67 Nos. 2・3・4のときに企業がを入手する確率と す る。 し た

ンチマークとして，FD ルール前のアナリスト

を，の情報獲得行動，報告するレポートを求める。

がって，将来業績が第 3 節では FD ルールの導入によるアナリスト

を，

のときに

のときに
を入手する確率は，となの情報獲得行動，報告するレポートの変化をみる。さらに，FD ルールが情報環境に与える影る。そのため，響をみる。最後の第 4 節では，本稿の結果をま

手する情報

が

に近いほど，企業が入は正確に将来業績を表す。

次に，アナリストが独自に入手する情報をとめる。なお，証明はすべて Appendix に記載する。

みる。本稿においては，アナリストも企業の

2

析によって入手することができ，この情報をに 関 す る 情 報 を 独 自 の 調 査・ 分

将来業績
ベンチマーク

2.1

設定とする。そして，このアナリスト

本稿は，証券会社のアナリスト，その顧客での入手する情報の条件付き確率ある機関投資家（意思決定者）が存在する 1 期

を 次 の よ う に 考 え る。 こ こ で は， 将 来 業 績間モデルを考える。この機関投資家はアナリス

がトからのレポートを受けて，企業に関する意思

手する確率を決定を行う。なお，すべてのプレイヤーはリスる（

ク中立的であると仮定する。

のとき，アナリストがの と き， ア ナ リ ス ト がとす）。同様に，将来業績がとする。ここにおいは高い将来業績，て，は低い将

来業績を意味する。この将来業績のときにて，将来業績が
のときに

業績が

とな
る。

トは，保有する情報に基づいて，企業の将来業に関するレポートを機関投資家に報告すを，将来を入手する確率は，は，等しい確率で外生的に決定される。そしてアナリス
績を入手する確率をと す る。 し た が っ

企業の将来業績は 2 種類存在する。この業
績を確率変数を入企業が入手する情報に入手する情報とアナリストが独自との関係をみる。ここでは，とアナリストが独自にる。このアナリストの保有する情報は，企業か企業が入手する情報

ら選択的開示によって入手する情報と，アナリ入手する情報は独立とする。また，企業がストが独自の調査・分析によって入手する情報

入手する情報は，アナリストが独自に入手によって構成される。

する情報企業の将来業績に関する情報には，企業績

よりも精度が高く，正確に将来業を表すとして，が入手する情報とアナリストが独自に入手する

議論を単純化するために，情報が存在する。まずはじめに，企業が入手すについて，る情報をみる。ここでは，この情報をす。この企業が入手する情報
と
お，

と表
）
。な

と仮定する4。
4との大小関係が，を入手する確率をと す る（）
。 同 様 に， 将 来 業 績 が

の大小関係

（1）

と表す。そしのときに企業がて，将来業績がとには，の 2 種 類存在する（の条件付き確率をとする。さらに，のとき，主要な結果は変わらない。

XMFRemote̲(69014)208128̲大阪大学経済学 第67巻第2・3号(74603) (X4̲単頁) 3 折 2017/12/21 11:20:49

フェア・ディスクロージャー・ルールとアナリスト行動

December 2017

本稿のタイムラインは，次のににおいて，アナ

よって構成される。まず－ 43 －

だし，企業の将来業績について具体的に表）は，将来業績

明しないとき（に関）。ここにおい

リストは企業から情報を入手して（選択的開わらず利得は 0 とする（示），追加的に情報を獲得するか決定する。次て，アナリストが企業の将来業績と異なるを報告したときの利得は，アでは，アナリストが顧客である機関の投資家に対してレポートを報告する。そしてにおいて，機関投資家が企業に関する意に，企業の業績が思決定をする。最後の明らかになる。

レポート

ナリストのキャリアコンサーンを表すと考えらが高い（低い）ほど，将来れる。つまり，
業績と異なるレポートを報告したときの負の利得が大きく（小さく）なり，これは経験のアナリストによる情まずはじめに，

報獲得行動をみる。アナリストは独自の調査・の浅い（熟練した）アナリストを意味する6。ここまでをまとめると次のようになる。

に関する情報分析によって企業の将来業績を入手することができる。ここでは，情報で表す。アナリストが情獲得の意思決定をとする（）。ただし，について，コンサーンを表すがかかり，情情報を入手するにはコスト

（3）

，情報を入

報を入手するときはを 仮 定 す る。 も しとする。

手しないときはにおいてアナリストが機関投資

次に，

また本稿においては，アナリストのキャリア，情報を入手しな報を入手するときを
いときを

（2）

な ら ば， ア ナ リ ス

トが常に企業の将来業績について具体的家に報告するレポートをみる。アナリストは，な 予 想 を 報 告 す る こ と を 意 味 す る。 一 方，に関の と き は，する予想を機関投資家に伝える。ここでは，アアナリストが常に具体的な予想を報告しないことする。なお，企業とを意味する。したがって本稿では，FD ルール

を予想するレポートをによるアナリストの行動の変化に着目するため，

このレポートによって企業の将来業績
ナリストのレポートをの高い将来業績，企業の低い将来業績を予想す，企業の将来業績るレポートを）。そして，アナリストは機関

いて企業に関する行動をする。ここでは，機によって利得レポートき，アナリストは報告したレポート5と企業の将来業を得るとする。報告したと企業の将来業績なるときは，の機関投資家による意思決定をみる。この機関投資家は入手した情報に基づ

5

投資家に報告したレポート
績

そして，

と表す

いて具体的に表明しないときを（について（3）式が成り立つ範囲を考える。

につが一致したとの利得を得る。一方，と企業の将来業績が異の利得を得る。た

企業の将来業績について具体的に表明しない
に対して，
または
のレポート
は具体的な予想を伝えるため，積極的なレポートを意味する。

関投資家の行動をと表して，この機関

投資家の利得をとする。この利得

は，企業の将来業績と自身が選択した行動によって構成され，と表す。したがって，機関投資家は，企業の将来業績に合った行動をとるほど高い利得を得て，異6Hong et al.（2000）は，経験の浅いアナリストほど，
不正確な予想をしたときの代償が大きいことを示している。これは今期の不正確な予想が将来の報酬にも影響を与えるからである。

XMFRemote̲(69014)208128̲大阪大学経済学 第67巻第2・3号(74603) (X4̲単頁) 4 折 2017/12/21 11:20:49

大－ 44 －

阪

大

学

経

学

Vol. 67 Nos. 2・3・4

命題 1

なった行動をとるほど低い利得を得る。
において，企業の将来業績最後の済が低い）は，自ら熟練したアナリスト（が明らかになり，各プレイヤーの利得が実現す調査・分析は行わず（），企業から選択る。

的開示によって入手した情報のみに基づいて，
機関投資家にレポートを報告する。その一方，

2.2

アナリストの情報獲得とレポートが高い）は，情報

経験の浅いアナリスト（

ここでは，ベンチマークにおけるアナリスト

獲得のコストが十分に低いとき，自ら調査・分）。そして，の情報獲得行動，そして機関投資家に報告する析を行って情報を入手する（

レポートをみる。まずはじめに，アナリストの企業から選択的開示によって入手した情報と独をみる。ア

自に入手した情報をもとに，機関投資家にレ

機関投資家に報告するレポート
ナリストの利得は（2）式のように，レポーと企業の将来業績

トによって決まる。こ

こでは，アナリストがレポート時の情報集合を
情報集合

を決定する

とする。このアナリストのは，企業から入手する情報独自に入手した情報

ポートを報告する。
が低い）は，報告

熟練したアナリスト（
したレポートと企業の将来業績が異なっとたときの代償（）が小さい。そのため，（情報を入手したとき）

企業の将来業績に関して情報を入手したとによって構成される。したがって，アナリスト

き，その情報の精度に関わらず，具体的な予想に基づいて期待利得が最大になるよ

を機関投資家に報告する。したがって，ベンチは情報

うに，レポートを決定する。

マークにおいては，企業から選択的開示によっ（4）て入手する情報に基づいてレポートを報告する
ため，追加的に情報を入手しない。

次に，アナリストの情報獲得行動をみる。ア
ナリストは，企業の将来業績についての情一方，経験の浅いアナリスト（
は，報告したレポートが高い）と企業の将来業績

を独自の調査・分析によって入手するこが異なったときの代償（）が大きい。そとができる。ただし，情報を入手するにはコスのため，企業の将来業績について十分な確報ト（）がかかる。そのため，アナリスト
におけるレポート

信を持ったときのみ，具体的な予想を機関投資の意思決定を考家に報告する。したがって，情報獲得コストが慮して，情報を入手するかを決める。ここで十分に低いとき，追加的に情報を入手する。そはは，情報獲得の意思決定時の情報集合をとする。なお，この情報集合は，企業からの情報

して，企業の将来業績に十分な確信を得た

とき，具体的な予想を機関投資家に報告する。

によって構成される。
（5）

3 フェア・ディスクロージャー・ルールの影響（4），（5）式から，ベンチマークにおけるア

本節では，FD ルールの導入によって，選択

ナリストの情報獲得行動，そして機関投資家に的開示が禁止され，企業が選択的開示から非開報告するレポートは次のようになる。

示または公的開示に開示方針を変更すると考える7。そして，それぞれの開示方針の変更を次の
7

Wang（2007）は，Reg FD によって，アナリストに対して選択的開示を行っていた企業の約半数が非開示

XMFRemote̲(69014)208128̲大阪大学経済学 第67巻第2・3号(74603) (X4̲単頁) 5 折 2017/12/21 11:20:49

フェア・ディスクロージャー・ルールとアナリスト行動

December 2017

－ 45 －

ように考える。企業が非開示に開示方針を変更

企業の将来業績したときは，アナリストはベンチマークにおいない限り，具体的な予想を機関投資家に報告しが入手できなくな

ない。そして，企業が非開示に開示方針を変更て入手できた企業の情報について十分な確信を持たる。一方，企業が公的開示に変更したときは，

したとき，独自の調査・分析によって情報アナリストだけではなく機関投資家も企業の情を入手したとしても，情報のみでは十分なを入手できる。ここではベンチマークと確信を持つことができない。したがって，企業比較して，FD ルールがアナリストの行動，情が非開示に開示方針を変更したとき，経験の報環境に与える影響を分析した。

浅いアナリスト（報が高い）は情報を入手しない。一方，熟練したアナリスト（
3.1

アナリストの行動に与える影響が低い）

は，命題 1 で示したように，企業の将来業績

まずはじめに，FD ルールがアナリストの行に関して情報を入手したとき，その情報の動に与える影響をみる。FD ルールによって，精度に関わらず，具体的な予想を機関投資家に企業が選択的開示から非開示・公的開示に開示報告する。そのため，熟練したアナリスト（

方針を変更したとき，それらがアナリストの行が低い）は，十分に情報獲得コストが低いと動に与える影響は次のようになる。

き，独自の調査・分析によって情報

を入手

する。
命題 2

FD ルール後に企業が公的開示に開示方針を

1．FD ルール後，企業が非開示に開示方針を変更したとき，ベンチマークと比較して，アナ変更したときのアナリストの情報獲得行動

リストの入手する情報に変化はない。したがっに与える影響は，キャリアコンサーンて，情報獲得行動にも影響を与えない。

と情報獲得コストに依存する。

（a） 熟練したアナリスト（が低い）は，

3.2

情報環境に与える影響

情報獲得コストが十分に低いとき，新次に，FD ルールが情報環境に与える影響を）。

みる。機関投資家は，アナリストからのレポー

たに情報を獲得する（b）経験の浅いアナリスト（ が高い）は情）。

報を獲得しなくなる（

2．FD ルール後，企業が公的開示に開示方針を変更したとき，アナリストの情報獲得行を受けて，企業に関する行動トる。ここでは，意思決定時の情報集合をは次式によって決定される。

（6）

FD ルール後に企業が非開示に開示方針を変この機関投資家の最適な行動を更したとき，アナリストは企業からの情報（6）式から，この最適な行動を入手することができなくなる。したがって，になる。

に関する情報を入手するた

めには，独自の調査・分析によって情報が高い）は，と す る。

は，次のよう（7）を入手するしかない。しかし命題 1 で示したよ
うに，経験の浅いアナリスト（とする。したがって，機関投資家の最適な行動

動に影響はない。

企業の将来業績を決定すしたがって，このときの機関投資家の期待利得は，に変更したと主張している。

XMFRemote̲(69014)208128̲大阪大学経済学 第67巻第2・3号(74603) (X4̲単頁) 6 折 2017/12/21 11:20:49

（8）

大

－ 46 －

阪

大

学

経

済

学

Vol. 67 Nos. 2・3・4となる。（8）式から機関投資家の期待利得は，いては，アナリストが具体的に表明しないとに依存する。そしき，機関投資家は何も情報を入手することがは，企業の開示方針，アできなかった。一方，企業が FD ルール後に公

ナリストのレポートによって決定される。命題的開示に変更したときは，企業の入手する情2 で示したように，アナリストのレポートは，報

FD ルール後の企業の開示方針の変更によって企業が入手する情報影響を受ける。つまり，機関投資家の意思決定

る情報

意思決定時の情報集合て，この情報集合

時の情報集合は，開示方針によって決定さが公的に開示されるため，機関投資家はとアナリストが入手すを入手することができる。その結果，

FD ルールによって情報環境が改善する。

れる。したがって，本稿では，FD ルールが情報環境に与える影響みるにあたって，機関投資

4

結論

を用いる。

家の事前の期待利得

そして，ベンチマークにおける機関投資家の本稿は，数理モデルを用いて FD ルールが導事前の期待利得と，FD ルール後に企業が非開入されたときの理論的予測を与えた。この FD

示・公的開示に開示方針を変更したときの機関ルール導入の積極的な意義の 1 つに，「アナリ

投資家の事前の期待利得を比較する。このとき

ストによる，より客観的で正確な分析及び推FD ルールが情報環境に与える影響は，次のよ奨が行われるための環境を整備すること」（金うになる。

融審議会，2016）がある。したがって本稿は，

命題 3

影響に焦点を当てた。

FD ルールの導入がアナリストの行動に与える
1．FD ルール後に企業が非開示に開示方針を

本稿のモデルでは，アナリストのキャリアコ

変更したとき，情報環境は変わらないま

ンサーンに着目して，FD ルールの導入によるたは悪化する。

アナリストの行動の変化をみた。その結果，企2．FD ルール後に企業が公的開示に開示方針

業が選択的開示から非開示に開示方針を変更しを変更したとき，情報環境は変わらない

たとき，アナリストの経験によって情報獲得行

または改善する。

動の変化が異なるという理論的予測が得られた。具体的には，このとき熟練したアナリスト

FD ルール後に，企業が非開示に開示方針をは，FD ルール後に新たに情報を入手しようとは，アする。一方，経験の浅いアナリストは FD ルー

ナリスト，機関投資家に伝わらない。したがっ

ル後に情報を入手しなくなる。さらに本稿は，て，このときアナリストが独自に調査・分析をFD ルールが情報環境に与える影響をみた。FD

行ってを入手したとしても，企業が入手す

ルールによって企業が開示方針を選択的開示かる情報

よりも精度が低いため，情報環境は

ら非開示に変更したとき，情報環境は変わらな変更したとき，企業の入手する情報悪化する。

いまたは悪化する。一方，企業が開示方針を選FD ルール後に企業が公的開示に方針を変更したとき，命題 2 で示したようにアナリストの択的開示から公的開示にしたときは，情報環境は変わらないまたは改善する。

行動には影響を与えない。しかし，アナリスト

本稿の分析から，アナリストの経験によっについて具体的に表明して，FD ルールがアナリストに与える影響が異），機関投資家の入手する情なるという理論的予測を得た。FD ルールを効報がベンチマークと異なる。ベンチマークにお率的に機能させるためには，その影響を把握すが企業の将来業績
ないとき（

XMFRemote̲(69014)208128̲大阪大学経済学 第67巻第2・3号(74603) (X4̲単頁) 7 折 2017/12/21 11:20:49

フェア・ディスクロージャー・ルールとアナリスト行動

December 2017

ることが重要である。したがって本稿は，その影響を把握するための検証可能な理論的予測を・－ 47 －

において，（A. 5）

与えた点で貢献がある。一方，本稿の結果から，FD ルールがアナリストの行動，情報環境アナリストは，このレポートを考慮して，

を決める。したがっに与える影響に関して企業の開示方針が重要な（5）式より情報獲得行動役割を果たすことがわかる。しかし本稿では，て，ベンチマークにおけるアナリストの最適なFD ルールと企業の開示方針の変更の関係につ行動（

いては考慮していない。したがって，これを今情報獲得コスト，）は，キャリアコンサーンとによって次のようになる。

後の課題とする。
において，Appendix（A. 6）

命題 1 の証明
ここでは，ベンチマークにおけるアナリストの最適な情報獲得行動（），レポート（）

を求める。まずはじめに（4）式より，情報獲
得行動

・

のとき，

を所与としたアナリストのレポートをみる。このレポート

は，情報集合とアナリストのキャリアコンサーン（A. 7）によっ・て決定され，次のようになる。

のとき，（A. 8））

アナリストが情報を入手するとき（
・

において，

において，
において，
（A. 1）

・

・

のとき，

において，
（A. 2）（A. 9）
・のとき，（A. 10）

ただし，
アナリストが情報を入手しないとき（
・

は，

）

において，
（A. 11）（A. 3）

・において，（A. 12）（A. 4）

これらより，命題 1 が得られる。

XMFRemote̲(69014)208128̲大阪大学経済学 第67巻第2・3号(74603) (X4̲単頁) 8 折 2017/12/21 11:20:49

大－ 48 －

阪

大

学

経

済

学

Vol. 67 Nos. 2・3・4

命題 2 の証明
ここでは，FD ルールがアナリストの行動に与える影響を分析する。そのため，企業が開示

において，
・

のとき，
（A. 18）

方針を非開示または公的開示に変更したときのアナリストの最適な行動（,）を，ベンチマークと同様に，（4），（5）式より求める。そ・のとき，（A. 19）

して，企業が開示方針を非開示にしたときのア
ナリストの最適な行動（）は次のように

,

において，

なる。
・

のとき，

において，

（A. 20）のとき，・（A. 13）
・

のとき，

・

のとき，
（A. 21）

一方，FD ルール後に，企業が公的開示に変（A. 14）は，次更したときの情報環境のようになる。

において，（A. 15）において，（A. 22）

ただしは，（A. 16）

において，
・

のとき，

一方，企業が開示方針を公的開示に変更した（A. 23）

とき，アナリストの得られる情報は FD ルール
前後で変わらない。そのため，企業が開示方針

・のとき，（A. 24）を公的開示に変更したとき，アナリストの行動に影響を与えない。以上から，命題 2 が得られ

において，

る。
・

のとき，

命題 3 の証明（A. 25）

ここでは，FD ルールが情報環境に与える影響をみる。そのため，ベンチマーク，企業が開・のとき，（A. 26）

示方針を非開示に変更したとき，そして公的開そして FD ルール後に，企業が非開示に変更

示に変更したときの情報環境をみる。

したときの情報環境

ベンチマークにおける情報環境

ようになる。

は，次のようになる。
において，（A. 17）

XMFRemote̲(69014)208128̲大阪大学経済学 第67巻第2・3号(74603) (X4̲単頁) 9 折 2017/12/21 11:20:49

は，次のフェア・ディスクロージャー・ルールとアナリスト行動

December 2017［7］ Hong, H., Kubik, J., and Solomon, D. (2000)

において，
・

“Security Analysts’ Career Concerns andのとき，（A. 27）

・－ 49 －のとき，

Herding of Earnings Forecasts,” Rand
Journal of Economics, 31(1), 121-144.
［8］ I r a n i , A . , a n d I . K a r a m a n o u . ( 2 0 0 3 )（A. 28）において，（A. 29）以上から，命題 3 が得られる。

“Regulation Fair Disclosure, analyst
following, and analyst forecast dispersion,”
Accounting Horizons, 17(1), 15-29.
［9］ Koch, A., C. Lefanowicz, and J. Robinson.
(2013) “Regulation FD: A Review and

参考文献

Synthesis of the Academic Literature,”
Accounting Horizons, 27(3), 619-646.

［1］ Agrawal, A., S. Chadha, and M. Chen. (2006)［10］Opdyke, J. (2000) “The Big Chill: Street Feels“Who is afraid of FD? The behavior andEffect of ‘Fair Disclosure’ Rule —Regulation

performance of sell-side analysts following

is Altering the Way Analysts Approach their

the SEC’s fair disclosure rules,” The Journal

Jobs”, Wall Street Journal, October 23.

of Business, 79(6), 2811-2834.
［2］ Arya, A., J. Glover, B. Mittendorf, and G.

［11］Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
(2000) “Final Rule: Selective Disclosure andNarayanamoorthy. (2005) “Unintended

Insider Trading.”

consequences of regulating disclosures: The

Available at: http://www.sec.gov/rules/

case of Regulation Fair Disclosure,” Journal

final/33-7881.htm

of Accounting and Public Policy, 24(3), 243252.
［3］ Brown, L., A. Call, M. Clement, and N. Sharp.
(2015) “Inside the “Black Box” of Sell-Side
Financial Analysts,” Journal of Accounting
Research, 53(1), 1-47.
［4］ Francis, J., D. Nanda, and X. Wang. (2006)［12］Wang, I. (2007) “Private Earnings Guidanceand Its Implications for Disclosure
Regulation,” The Accounting Review, 82(5),1229-1332.
［13］金融審議会（2016）「フェア・ディスクロー
ジャー・ルール・タスクフォース報告〜
投資家への公平・適時な情報開示の確保“Re-examining the effects of regulation fairのために〜」

disclosure using foreign listed firms to control

http://www.fsa.go.jp/singi/singi_kinyu/

for concurrent shocks,” The Accounting andtosin/20161222-1/03.pdf

Economics, 41(3), 271-292.
［5］ Hassett, K. (2000) “Outlaw selective disclosure?
No, the more information the better,” Wall Street
Journal, August 10.
［6］ Heflin, F., K. Subramanyam, and Y. Zhang.
(2003) “Regulation FD and the Financial
Information Environment: Early Evidence,”
The Accounting Review, 78(1), 1-37.

XMFRemote̲(69014)208128̲大阪大学経済学 第67巻第2・3号(74603) (X4̲単頁) 10 折 2017/12/21 11:20:49

大－ 50 －

阪

大

学

経

済

学

Vol. 67 Nos. 2・3・4

Fair Disclosure Rule and Analysts’ Behavior
Toru Ishikawa

The purpose of this study is to analyze the effect of the Fair Disclosure Rule (FD rule). The paper
focuses on the effect on stock analysts’ behavior, as stock analysts are subject to the FD rule. The
effect of the FD rule from the perspective of analysts’ characteristic is examined. The results show thatthe effect is different based on whether the analyst is experienced or inexperienced. It is important to
identify the effect on stock analysts’ behavior to ensure that the FD rule implemented efficiently andthe theoretical prediction provided in this study contributes to this process.
JEL Classification: M41
Key words: Fair Disclosure Rule, information aquisition, career concerns.

XMFRemote̲(69014)208128̲大阪大学経済学 第67巻第2・3号(74603) (X4̲単頁) 11 折 2017/12/21 11:20:49

大Vol. 67 Nos. 2・3・4

阪

大

学

経

『大阪大学経済学』

総

論
論

済

学

December 2017

第67巻

目

平成29年

次

題

著

者

巻

号

年

月

頁

文

Movement of people in East Asia and ASEAN……………… Shigeharu Nomura

67 ― 1

H. 29. 6

1 ― 17

67 ― 2・3・4 H. 29.12

1 ― 39Top management team characteristics and team processes: A review………………………………………………… Xin Huang and Koichi Nakagawa
フェア・ディスクロージャー・ルールとアナリスト行動石川

徹

67 ― 2・3・4 H. 29.12

40 ― 50沢井実

67 ― 1

H. 29. 6

18 ― 25

受賞作要旨 ………………………………………

67 ― 1

H. 29. 6

26 ― 33

最優秀研究要旨 …………

67 ― 1

H. 29. 6

34 ― 35……………………………………………………………………………

67 ― 1

H. 29. 6

36 ― 64

67 ― 2・3・4 H. 29.12

i…………………………………………………………………
資料

海軍施設系技術官の戦後に関する資料彙……………………

報

平成 28 年度

学生懸賞論文平成 28 年度

学部学生による自主研究奨励事業

学会消息『大阪大学経済学』第 67 巻

平成 29 年

総目次 ………………………………

－i－

Editorial Policy
The Osaka Daigaku Keizaigaku (English title, Osaka Economic Papers) is published quarterly by the Economic Society ofOsaka University and the Graduate School of Economics, Osaka University. The articles may be either in Japanese or inWestern languages.
The Journal shall be under the editorial direction of an editorial board of three persons chosen from members of the
Graduate School of Economics of Osaka University. The editorial board shall select papers for publication from submissions
and classify them into the following categories : articles, notes, data, and book reviews.
Researchers who belong to the Graduate School of Economics of Osaka University may submit their studies for publication
to this journal. Those who do not belong to the Graduate School may also publish their papers in this journal, if theircontribution is closely related to research being undertaken in the Graduate School of Economics of Osaka University.
In the case of contributed manuscripts, the author should be a member of the Economic Society of Osaka University, who
has paid the yearly membership fee of 4,000 yen.

大阪大学経済学

第67巻

第 2・3・4 号（通巻218号）

平成29年12月発行
編集兼発行人〒560―0043

豊中市待兼山町 1 番 7 号

印

刷

所

〒920―0855

金沢市武蔵町 7 番10号

発

行

所

〒560―0043

豊中市待兼山町 1 番 7 号

谷

㟢

久

志

能登印刷株式会社
大阪大学経済学会・大阪大学大学院経済学研究科



tel/fax

06―6850―5270



振替00940―2―19842

Vol. 67

Nos. 2・3・4

December 2017

ArticlesTop Management Team Characteristics and Team Processes: A review････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････ Xin Huang and Koichi Nakagawa

1

Fair Disclosure Rule and Analystsʼ Behavior ･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････ Toru Ishikawa

40

Index to Volume 67（2017） ･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

i

THE ECONOMIC SOCIETY OF OSAKA UNIVERSITYGRADUATE SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS, OSAKA UNIVERSITY